Ancient Art and Architecture in Context Vol. 3 sample

Sabina Ion

About the Author

The Frieze of Tomb II at Vergina

Hallie M. Franks Tomb II at Vergina is a royal tomb, built to commemorate a member of the Macedonian royal family in the period of prosperity and opulence surrounding Alexander the Great’s reign. The painted hunting scene that adorns the tomb’s facade is a striking and rare example of Macedonian court art. Newly reconstructed here, the painting, dedicated to the recognition of the deceased, elucidates the cultural influences through which the kingdom and its rulers declared their legitimacy. In this study, Franks redefines the place of this masterpiece in Macedonian art, adroitly navigating myth, history, and visual tradition in her new interpretation of the famous “Hunting Frieze” at Vergina.

Ancient Art and Architecture in Context Published with the support of the Getty Foundation, this series demonstrates, through case studies of specific artifacts and monuments, that aesthetic study, contextual investigation, and technical examination are complementary tools in the quest to retrieve meaning from the past. By combining archaeological and art historical approaches within a contextual framework, the books in this series exemplify true interdisciplinary research and lead to a richer understanding of antiquity.

Franks

Hallie Franks is an Assistant Professor of Ancient Studies at New York University’s Gallatin School of Individualized Study. She is currently excavating with the American Research Center in Sofia and The National Institute of Archaeology with Museum at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (NIAM-BAS) at the Macedonian site of Heraclea Sintica in southwestern Bulgaria. Her next project looks at the metaphorical connections between movement through architecture and travel in ancient Greece.

HUNTERS ∙ HEROES ∙ KINGS

The author at the Macedonian site of Heraclea Sintica.

HUNTERS ∙ HEROES ∙ KINGS

Hunters, Heroes, Kings: The Frieze of Tomb II at Vergina

Jacket Illustrations Front: Facade of Tomb II, Vergina Photo Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Tourism/17th Ephorate for Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities Back: Detail of lion hunt, Alexander Sarcophagus, ca. 310 b.c. Istanbul, Archaeological Museum 370 Photo Erich Lessing/Art Resource, NY

FRANKS COVER PRESS.indd 1

ASCSA

HALLIE M. FRANKS

8/8/12 4:30 PM

ANCIENT ART AND ARCHITECTURE IN CONTEXT SERIES EDITOR : CAROL C. MATTUSCH, George Mason University

1 B. Barr-Sharrar, The Derveni Krater: Masterpiece of Classical Greek Metalwork (2008)

2 B. A. Robinson, Histories of Peirene: A Corinthian Fountain in Three Millennia (2011)

• Published with the assistance of the Getty Foundation •

AAAC FRANKS.indb 2

8/8/12 2:10 PM

— ANCIENT ART AND ARCHITECTURE IN CONTEXT 3 —

The Frieze of Tomb II at Vergina

by

hallie m. Franks

THE AMERICAN SCHOOL OF CLASSICAL STUDIES AT ATHENS Princeton

Dedicated to the memory of my father

z

Copyright 2012. The American School of Classical Studies at Athens.

All rights reserved.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Franks, Hallie M. Hunters, heroes, kings : the frieze of tomb II at Vergina / by Hallie M. Franks. p. cm. — (Ancient art and architecture in context ; 3) Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-0-87661-966-7 (alk. paper) 1. Mural painting and decoration, Macedonian—Greece—Vergina. 2. Tombs—Decoration— Greece—Vergina. 3. Hunters in art. 4. Heroes in art. 5. Kings and rulers in art. I. Title.

ND2754.V47F73 2012 751.7´309381—dc23 2012023984

Printed in Italy

AAAC FRANKS.indb 4

8/8/12 2:10 PM

Contents List of Illustrations vii Acknowledgments ix Introduction 1

Tomb II and Its Context 10

The Painted Frieze 14

Questions about the Frieze 19

The Date of Tomb II 21

Approach and Outline of Chapters 23 ONE

The Hunters 27 The Hunt in the Near East 28 The Lion Hunt in Greece and Macedonia 36 The Macedonian Horseman 41 The Northern Aegean Horseman 48 A Portrait of Kingship 53 Portrait within a Portrait 57

TWO

The Hunt 59 The Citizen Hunter 60 The Hero Hunter 61 The Group Hunt 67 The Heroic as Model in Macedonia 72 Heroic(?) Nudity 74

THREE The Landscape 77 The Paradeisos Possibility 78

The Greek Grove and Sacred Space 84

Sacral Elements in Pastoral and Mythological Scenes 88

A Heroic Landscape 97

AAAC FRANKS.indb 5

8/8/12 2:10 PM

vi •

contents FOUR

Heroes and Kings 101 Portraits in Narrative 102 Paradigms in Praise Songs 105 Reading Paradigms in the Vergina Frieze 107 Foundations and the Earliest Macedonian Kings 108 Conclusions: Applying the Paradigms at Tomb II 111

Appendix The Date of Tomb II 115

The Vault 119

The “Diadem” 119

Armor, Weaponry, and Paraphernalia 120

The Remains of the Female 122

The Remains in the Main Chamber 123

The Pottery and Metalwork 124 Notes 127 References 143 154 Illustration Credits Index 155

AAAC FRANKS.indb 6

8/8/12 2:11 PM

Illustrations 1.

2.

3 4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

AAAC FRANKS.indb 7

Map of Macedonia 3 Facade of Tomb II, Vergina 5 Artist’s rendering of the facade of Tomb II, Vergina 6 a. Painted frieze, Tomb II, Vergina; b. Artist’s rendering of the painted frieze of Tomb II facing 6 Central section of the painted frieze, Tomb II, Vergina 7 Detail of central hunter and horse, painted frieze, Tomb II, Vergina 7 Detail of central hunter, painted frieze, Tomb II, Vergina 7 Left section of the painted frieze, Tomb II, Vergina 8 Detail of boar hunter, painted frieze, Tomb II, Vergina 8 Right section of the painted frieze, Tomb II, Vergina 9 Detail of column and boar hunters, painted frieze, Tomb II, Vergina 9 Detail of tree and mounted deer hunter, painted frieze, Tomb II, Vergina 9 “Diadem,” from Tomb II, Vergina 13 Pectoral, from Tomb II, Vergina 15 Gold larnax, from Tomb II, Vergina 15 Ashurbanipal hunting lions with a spear from a chariot, wall relief, Room C, panel 22, North Palace of Ashurbanipal, Nineveh, ca. 668–627 B.c. 29 Ashurbanipal grappling with a lion, wall relief, Room S, panel 11, North Palace of Ashurbanipal, Nineveh, ca. 668–627 B.c. 29 Persian in combat with lion, west gate, Palace of Darius, Persepolis, ca. 515–480 B.c. 30 Darius I hunting from a chariot, agate cylinder seal and its sealing, ca. 522–486 B.c. 31 Panther hunt, Satrap Sarcophagus, late 5th or early 4th century B.c. 32 Boar hunt, Lycian Sarcophagus, late 5th or early 4th century B.c. 33 Lion hunt from chariots, Lycian Sarcophagus 33 Hunting scene, Alexander Sarcophagus, ca. 310 B.c. 34 Detail of lion hunt, Alexander Sarcophagus 35 Detail of mounted lion hunter, Alexander Sarcophagus 35 State drawing of Palermo hunt mosaic, Piazza della Vittoria 37 Reconstruction of Palermo hunt mosaic 37 Horseman and lion, silver stater of Amyntas III, 393/2–370/69 B.c. 40 Crowned figure with weapons, gold daric, 5th century B.c. 42 Horseman and goat protome, silver tetradrachm of Alexander I, ca. 498–454 B.c. 43 Man standing beside a bridled horse and incluse, silver drachm of the Bisaltai, ca. 500 B.c. 44 Horseman and incluse, silver obol of the Bisaltai, ca. 500 B.c. 44 Man standing beside a bridled horse and incluse, silver drachm of Alexander I, ca. 498–454 B.c. 44 Horseman and lion protome, silver tetrobol of Perdikkas II, ca. 454–413 B.c. 44 Head of Herakles and horse, silver stater of Amyntas III, ca. 393/2–370/69 B.c. 45

8/8/12 2:11 PM

viii •

illustrations 36.

Head of Herakles and eagle grasping serpent, copper alloy coin of Amyntas III, 393/2–370/69 B.c. 45 37. Head of Zeus and bearded horseman with raised hand, silver tetradrachm of Philip II, ca. 359–356 B.c. 46 38. Horseman and kotyle, bronze coin of Kotys I, ca. 382–358 B.c. 46 39. Head of Zeus and jockey on horseback, silver tetradrachm of Philip II, ca. 359–336 B.c. 47 40. Head of Apollo and charioteer in biga, gold stater of Philip II, ca. 359–336 B.c. 47 41. Standing horse and eagle grasping a serpent, silver triobol of Sparadokos, ca. 425 B.c. 49 42. Hunting scene, Thracian tomb at Alexandrovo, 4th century B.c. 51 43. Detail of stag hunt, Thracian tomb at Alexandrovo 51 44. Detail of boar hunt, Thracian tomb at Alexandrovo 51 45. Naram-Sin conquering enemies, Akkadian stele, ca. 2254–2218 B.c. 55 46. Lion hunt, mosaic, House of Dionysos, Pella, ca. 325–300 B.c. 62 47. Stag hunt, mosaic, House of the Abduction of Helen, Pella, ca. 325–300 B.c. 63 48. Chiron retrieving the infant Achilles, Protoattic amphora fragments, ca. 660–650 B.c. 65 49. Peleus surrounded by wild beasts, black-figure oinochoe, ca. 520 B.c. 66 50. Boar hunt, red-figure pelike, ca. 370 B.c. 71 51. Boar hunt, relief hydria, ca. 340 B.c. 71 52. Boar hunt, red-figure cup, attributed to the Kodros Painter, ca. 440 B.c. 71 53. Watercolor rendering of hunting scene, House of the Hunt, Pompeii, 1st century A.d. 79 54. Stag hunt with nets, wall relief, Room S, panel 18, North Palace, Nineveh, ca. 668–627 B.c. 80 55. Boar hunt from horseback, sarcophagus from Çan, ca. 400–375 B.c. 84 56. Figure approaching goddess, votive relief from Daphni, ca. 425–400 B.c. 85 57. Scene with landscape elements, red-figure calyx krater, attributed to the Semele Painter, ca. 425–375 B.c. 85 58. Sacrifice scene with Asklepios and Hygieia, votive relief, ca. 350–330 B.c. 86 59. Sacrifice scene with Asklepios and Hygieia, votive relief, ca. 350–320 B.c. 86 60. Sacrifice scene, votive relief, late 2nd century B.c. 87 61. Sacral-idyllic landscape, Room 16 (Red Room), Villa of Agrippa Postumus, Boscotrecase, late 1st century B.c. 88 62. Sacral-idyllic landscape, portico of the Temple of Isis complex, Pompeii, 1st century A.d. 89 63. Polyphemos and Galateia, Room 19, Villa of Agrippa Postumus, Boscotrecase, late 1st century B.c. 93 64. Chariot race between Pelops and Oenomaos, red-figure bell krater, Oenomaos Painter, 4th century B.c. 94 65. Sacrifice at the altar of Chryse, red-figure bell krater fragments, London E494 Painter, 5th century B.c. 95 66. Persians hunting, red-figure and relief squat lekythos, Xenophantos Painter, ca. 400–380 B.c. 96 67. Detail of griffin hunt, red-figure and relief squat lekythos, Xenophantos Painter 97 68. Amazonomachy, sculpted sarcophagus, 3rd century A.d. 103 69. Sandro Botticelli, Adoration of the Magi, ca. A.d. 1475 104 70. Genealogy of Argead kings 110

AAAC FRANKS.indb 8

8/8/12 2:11 PM

Acknowledgments This project has been possible only through the support and advice of a number of colleagues and friends, to whom I offer my deepest gratitude.

I owe most sincere thanks to Gloria Ferrari Pinney, who supported this study from its inception in her 2003 seminar. Her rigorous questions and thoughtful responses to countless drafts of this manuscript have been a constant source of stimulation and guidance, and her warm encouragement has supported every stage of my work. Irene J. Winter’s work on reading material culture and, in particular, the royal image has been an inspiration, and I am indebted to her for her consistently kind and insightful advice. I am deeply grateful as well to Carmen Arnold-Biucchi, who has shared with me not only her boundless expertise in numismatics, but also her support and friendship during this long process. It has been my great pleasure and honor to work with each of these exceptional scholars.

I also acknowledge the help of others who have contributed in various ways to this project. I have benefited from the knowledge, generosity, and encouragement of Hariclia Brecoulaki, Joan B. Connelly, Melissa A. Eppihimer, Theodora Kopestonsky, Katerina Ladianou, Kenneth D. S. Lapatin, Jennifer Ledig Grossmann, Andreya Mihaloew, Emil Nankov, John H. Oakley, R. R. R. Smith, Andrew Stewart, Steven V. Tracy, Valerie M. Warrior, Jeffrey R. Webb, and Angela Ziskowski. David Gordon Mitten, Betsey Robinson, and Suzanne Smith commented on early drafts of this study and indulged me in many productive conversations about the hunt. Those who read the manuscript closer to its completion—including Ada Cohen, Clemente Marconi, and the outside readers and Publications Committee reviewer for the American School of Classical Studies at Athens—offered suggestions for improvement that have substantially strengthened the final version. Melissa A. Haynes, Kathryn Topper, and Ioanna Damanaki were instrumental in the process of gathering images and permissions. William Wootton generously shared his reconstructions of the Palermo mosaic, and Valentin Todorov was kind to share his photographs of the Alexandrovo tomb, as well as his expertise. I owe a special thanks to H. R. Goette, who graciously made available his photographs of the Vergina frieze, and to Daniel R. Lamp, who, through the dedication of tremendous time and energy, created the new digital reconstruction of the frieze presented here. I have benefited in the final stages of this project from the diverse perspectives of my colleagues at New York University’s Gallatin School of Individualized Study, and most especially from Lisa Goldfarb, Laura Slatkin, and Dean Susanne Wofford.

I am profoundly thankful for the patience and loving support of my family and my partner, Jake, throughout this process; this book would not have been possible without them.

Fellowships from the Mellon Council on Library and Information Resources, the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, and Harvard University’s Graduate

AAAC FRANKS.indb 9

8/8/12 2:11 PM

x•

acknowledgments Society funded the research and writing of the dissertation that was the foundation for the current project. New York University’s Humanities Initiative provided a grant toward the cost of images and permissions, and the Getty Foundation generously subsidized production costs of the book. I gratefully acknowledge this support.

Finally, very special thanks and appreciation are due to Andrew Reinhard, Carol Stein, Timothy Wardell, Karen Edwards Donohue, and Mary Jane Gavenda, of the American School of Classical Studies Publications Office, and to Carol Mattusch, the editor of the Ancient Art and Architecture in Context series. Their kind attention, patience, and careful editing have made this final product possible.

AAAC FRANKS.indb 10

8/8/12 2:11 PM

Introduction

AAAC FRANKS.indb 1

8/8/12 2:11 PM

2•

introduction

F

•

rom its remote position on the periphery of the Aegean world, the kingdom of Macedonia emerged in the 4th century B.c. as a center of increasing power and influence. The swift ascent of Macedonia under the Argead king Philip II and his son, Alexander the Great, brought the end of Classical Greece and ushered in a new international era of Hellenistic politics and culture. Philip (a force, by many accounts, to rival his famous son) established hegemony over the Greek city-states, paving the way for an unprecedented expansion of Hellenic interests in the East. Alexander, within his brief thirteen-year reign, conquered the massive expanse of the Persian empire and set himself up as its new king. He is a towering figure in Hellenic and, indeed, in world history: he is the constant subject of countless biographies and renderings, and his actions have been the basis for folklore and scholarship, for histories and novels, for war stories and romances alike.

It is in relationship to Alexander that many discussions of the Macedonian kingdom, as well as modern ideas of the Macedonian king and court, are framed—and this is, perhaps, inevitable. His achievements were so astounding and his personality so mercurial that he remains an alluring subject even while his true nature defies easy definition or explanation. But he is also unavoidable in any investigation of Macedonian history or culture because the bulk of the ancient literature pertaining to the kingdom in this period documents his conquests and character. For these reasons, Alexander has become, in many ways, the embodiment of all things Macedonian; or, more precisely, he is the lens through which we very often view Macedonia. But because it is the exceptional nature of Alexander’s life that makes him such an appealing subject for his biographers, ancient and modern, this lens is a problematic one for those who seek to delineate and understand Macedonian culture and kingship apart from its most famous and least typical king.

The traditions according to which kingship was visually represented in Macedonia remain poorly defined. Even the extent to which Alexander, as King of Greece and Asia, depended on or departed from Macedonian expectations in his own self-image is not well understood, despite substantial, if controversial, literary accounts of the customs of his Eastern court. But while Alexander’s biographers are concerned primarily with the eccentricities of his court practices, material evidence from ancient Macedonia constitutes a different kind of source and a provides different kind of perspective. Here, definitive images of and direct references to Alexander are rare. The archaeological remains instead offer vital—and often neglected—clues about the ways in which the Macedonian court negotiated its public image within the kingdom.

Macedonia’s own fortunes swelled with the successes of its kings. The consolidation and expansion of political power under Philip and Alexander, and, in turn, under Kassander, introduced relative stability and affluence, and this new prosperity is reflected in an increasingly wealthy and monumental archaeological record. The palace at Pella, the kingdom’s administrative capital, was expanded in the years after Alexander’s death, and in the late 4th or early 3rd century B.c. the construction of a large palatial building began at Aigai, Macedonia’s ancestral and ceremonial capital, located at the modern town of Vergina (Fig. 1).1 Extravagant houses near Pella’s marketplace attest to a culture of luxury, preserving in their numerous dining rooms some of the few extant examples of figural mosaics dating before the Roman period. In addition to such examples of public and domestic display, the region’s increasing number of built tombs—featuring astounding

AAAC FRANKS.indb 2

8/8/12 2:11 PM

•3

introduction

Amphipolis

Edessa

Thasos

Pella Therme Vergina (Aigai)

Olynthos

Dion

N Figure 1. Map of Macedonia

AAAC FRANKS.indb 3

8/8/12 2:11 PM

4•

introduction v­ ariety in their size, form, and decoration—suggests a concern with both the afterlife of the individual and his living commemoration in this world.2 Of these, no monument has attracted more attention than Tomb II at Vergina. One of the few Macedonian tombs to emerge with its structure and contents intact, Tomb II has come to embody the Macedonian court’s opulence and display in the years surrounding Alexander’s reign (Figs. 2, 3).

Certainly, the study of this archaeological material has been influenced by the weight of Alexander’s legacy, and it is further complicated by the new status of the kingdom during and after his reign as (conceptually, if not logistically) an imperial center. Ongoing excavations in the region have been intensely productive, and they promise to deliver evidence that will further illuminate all periods of the kingdom’s history and that, in its synthesis, will help clarify political and cultural traditions. But even now, the material uncovered to date stands as an invitation to consider the ways in which the image of royal Macedonia was crafted and visually expressed within the kingdom. It also raises the question to what extent the public royal image was, like the grandeur of the archaeological record in which it is preserved, something new in the late 4th century.

Discernible within the Classical kingdom’s visual material, in fact, are traditions that served as the foundation for the public expression of a Macedonian identity, including the delineation of conceptions of kingship and royal behavior.3 These traditions seem to have developed before Alexander’s reign, in relationship to various influences, and there is reason to believe that they continued to hold sway in Macedonia even after the kingdom’s eastward expansion. Three questions that stem from this line of inquiry will serve as the backdrop for this study. First, how do visual sources reflect Macedonia’s royal identity? Second, as Macedonia shifts from a peripheral nation to an imperial power, what place do existing traditions in the kingdom have in the expression of this identity?

And, finally, how does Macedonia’s location on the peripheries of both the Greek world and the Persian empire impact the development of these traditions over the course of the Classical period?

I cannot hope to answer these questions definitively. In an effort to explore their implications, however, I shall focus my attention on a striking example of Macedonian court art: the frieze painted above the columns and Doric entablature on the facade of Tomb II at Vergina (Figs. 2–12). The painting depicts a hunting scene, in which ten men and their dogs pursue a variety of dangerous and challenging prey, including two deer, a boar, a lion, and a bear. Two of the lion hunters are highlighted as the scene’s main figures: they are on horseback, in contrast to their companions on foot, and they are clothed, while others are nude. They also possess unique attributes. One, positioned in the painting’s center, wears a crown of laurel, and the other is bearded, suggesting his mature age. The hunt is set within a rocky, mountainous landscape, the extensive depiction of which is unparalleled in the extant Greek visual tradition. Sashes and a tablet adorn a tree between the deer and boar hunts; these elements, along with a pillar nearby, suggest the sacred nature of the space.

Most agree that Tomb II is a royal tomb, built to commemorate a member of the Macedonian royal family. The frieze, therefore, is a unique visual source in that it is associated with one of the best-preserved and most complete royal contexts within Macedonia: since Tomb II survived undisturbed by looters, the painting’s context includes not only the built monument and location at ancient Aigai, but also substantial and valuable funerary goods, intended, like the frieze, to honor the royal occupant. Thus the painting is an

AAAC FRANKS.indb 4

8/8/12 2:11 PM

introduction

•5

Figure 2. Facade of Tomb II, Vergina

AAAC FRANKS.indb 5

8/8/12 2:11 PM

6•

introduction

Figure 3. Artist’s rendering of the facade of Tomb II, Vergina

AAAC FRANKS.indb 6

8/8/12 2:12 PM

introduction

•7

Figure 5. Central section of the painted frieze, Tomb II, Vergina

Figure 7. Detail of central hunter, painted frieze, Tomb II, Vergina

Figure 6. Detail of central hunter and horse, painted frieze, Tomb II, Vergina

AAAC FRANKS.indb 7

8/8/12 2:12 PM

8•

introduction

Figure 8. Left section of the painted frieze, Tomb II, Vergina

Figure 9. Detail of boar hunter, painted frieze, Tomb II, Vergina

AAAC FRANKS.indb 8

8/8/12 2:12 PM

introduction

•9

Figure 10. Right section of the painted frieze, Tomb II, Vergina

Figure 11. Detail of column and boar hunters, painted frieze, Tomb II, Vergina

AAAC FRANKS.indb 9

Figure 12. Detail of tree and mounted deer hunter, painted frieze, Tomb II, Vergina

8/8/12 2:12 PM

10 •

introduction appropriate and productive starting point for a consideration of the crafting of the royal Macedonian image within the kingdom, particularly in light of evidence that royal funerals were, at least to some degree, state events. Although its precise date remains controversial, the construction of Tomb II falls within the period of prosperity surrounding Alexander’s reign, and the frieze, in addition to introducing its own interpretive challenges (such as the significance of the theme for the funerary context and for the individual buried in the tomb), exemplifies the problems that prompt us to ask the questions presented above.

Some scholars, for instance, have found in the frieze a reflection of recently imported, Persianizing practices that developed in Alexander’s court in the East. The tomb’s location at a Macedonian capital, however, complicates this assumption. Even as a kingdom of marginal influence in the Classical period, Macedonia was always located at a dynamic cultural crossroads; prior to Alexander’s conquest, it maintained a number of active regional and international contacts that would have facilitated exposure to the court culture and iconography of the Persian empire. Further, the emphasis on Alexander’s court practices in such interpretations overlooks the fact that Alexander’s need to appeal to an increasingly diverse army and foreign population would not have been a concern in the Macedonian capital. It is here, if anywhere, that local Macedonian traditions—under whatever influences they originally developed—would have continued to be meaningful.

This book, therefore, reconsiders the Tomb II frieze against the backdrop of larger concerns about the painting’s Macedonian context and the cultural influences through which the kingdom elucidated its identity and the rulers declared legitimacy. My contention—to be expanded upon below—is that in the Tomb II frieze we might recognize certain local traditions, according to which the royal self-image was defined and perpetuated within the kingdom. These traditions emerged in Macedonia long before Alexander’s reign, out of a complex negotiation of claims to heroic and local dynastic pasts and regional ideals of kingship. The painting, therefore, might serve as an eloquent testimony that local traditions, to which specific and long-standing meanings were attached, were not discarded in favor of a new iconographic and ideological system imported from the East—even if it was Alexander’s system. Instead, such traditions continued to play a crucial role in the construction and visual expression of the royal image within Macedonia.

Before expanding upon these broader issues, however, let us turn first to the tomb and its context, and to the frieze itself.

Tomb II and Its Context Tomb II not only constitutes the immediate archaeological context for the frieze that will be our main subject, but it also offers evidence for the funerary customs of the Macedonian elite. Moreover, it is a setting in which the frieze might be read as a statement of royal identity. Tomb II is one of three built tombs, numbered I–III according to the order of their discovery, within the Megali Toumba, the Great Tumulus, at Vergina. Their numbered sequence also happens to reflect our understanding of their relative chronology, with Tomb I the earliest, and Tomb III the latest. Each of the monuments is preserved in situ, and the modern Vergina Museum is built around them. The exterior of the museum, designed to replicate the Great Tumulus, consists of a grassy mound, with entrance dromoi cut into its sides. One’s entrance into the museum plays upon the experience of descending to the world of the dead: as the visitor follows one of the dromoi out of the Medi-

AAAC FRANKS.indb 10

8/8/12 2:12 PM

introduction

• 11

terranean sun, he or she is plunged into a dark cavern in which objects from the site are dramatically spotlit. The experience builds as one turns from Tomb I to the display of the Tomb II assemblage—a wealth of glittering gold and bronze made all the more impressive by the surrounding darkness. To see Tombs II and III, the visitor descends further, down a staircase to a platform confronting each monument’s facade.

Manolis Andronikos had briefly excavated at the Great Tumulus in 1962, 1963, and again (after some seasons spent on the palace at Vergina) beginning in 1976. It was in the following season, in 1977, that Tombs I and II came to light.4 Tomb I is a single rectangular room, lined and covered with massive stone slabs. The tomb was looted and the bones of its occupants scattered, but one of its treasures survives: a series of paintings on its interior walls.5 On the north wall, Hades, his four-horse chariot guided by Hermes, abducts a mournful Persephone, whose companion cowers at the right. Persephone’s mother, Demeter, is shown, cloaked and with covered head, sitting on a rock on the eastern wall, and to the south are three figures that Andronikos interpreted as the Three Fates.

The wall paintings of Tomb I are an exceptional find, contributing, as does the hunting scene of Tomb II, to the very limited corpus of surviving Greek painting. From a technical perspective, the Tomb I painting offers masterful examples of the medium’s potential. Hades’s chariot, for instance, is rendered in three-quarter view, and in the abduction scene, the pair’s vivid expressions and the wild disorder of hair and drapery poignantly reflect the urgency and violence of the subject. The style of this painting is quite different from that of the Tomb II frieze: it is quick, painterly, impressionistic, even sketchy—in fact, the artist’s preliminary sketches are still visible, particularly around the head of Hades, which was lowered slightly in its final form.6 Unfortunately, the date of Tomb I, like that of Tomb II, is unclear, but it is normally dated to the middle decades of the 4th century.

Tomb I and the nearby Tomb II were both subterranean and were together covered by a small tumulus of red earth and then by the substantially larger Great Tumulus, which also covered an additional monumental tomb, Tomb III.7 I will return to Tomb II in greater detail below, but this Tomb III, discovered when Andronikos continued excavations in the spring of 1978, is worth a brief description here.8 Tomb III is located at the northern edge of the smaller, red earth tumulus that was later covered by the Great Tumulus. Like Tomb II, this monument is a “Macedonian tomb,” a type of built tomb that, by definition, is a chamber tomb, roofed with a barrel vault, and often covered with an earthen mound.9 Many tombs of this type also have an architectural facade. The Tomb III facade features two pilasters at its edges, surmounted by a Doric epistyle and a frieze of triglyphs and metopes. Above is a blank frieze; Andronikos suggests that a painting on a movable wood or leather panel might have been attached in this place.10 Inside the antechamber, around the wall at the spring of the vault, a painted frieze depicts a chariot race, a heroic theme that may allude to epic funeral games in honor of the dead (such as those for Patroklos; Hom. Il. 23.285–287). In the tomb’s unlooted main chamber, the cremated remains of the single occupant were wrapped in a purple cloth, and placed in a silver hydria. A gold oak wreath was placed around the neck of the hydria, and the whole was set into the hollow of a “table” against the back wall.

Tomb II was buried between Tombs I and III under the Great Tumulus.11 Tomb II itself was discovered almost contemporaneously with Tomb I in the fall of 1977, and it was uncovered from the top down, and at the front first.12 Its facade features, under the painted

AAAC FRANKS.indb 11

8/8/12 2:12 PM

12 •

introduction frieze, a Doric frieze of triglyphs (painted blue) and metopes; flanking the tomb’s door, which consists of two marble leaves, are two decorative Doric half-columns, and, farther outside, two engaged pilasters (Fig. 2). After exposing the facade, Andronikos continued to uncover the full extent of the tomb’s vault before proceeding to the interior. As the team came down on the vault from above, they discovered a level of sun-dried bricks, some with traces of burning. This was the foundation of the funerary pyre on which the tomb’s occupant had been cremated, a conclusion confirmed by the associated material, which included weaponry, wreaths, evidence of cloth, a bronze jug and plate fragments, a harness for a horse, and the bones of goat, sheep, and horses.13 Andronikos had anticipated that he would find a looters’ entrance cut through the monument’s vaulted roof, and this expectation was warranted, since only one of the 51 Macedonian tombs excavated at that time had been discovered unlooted.14 When he and his team reached the vault of the tomb, however, it appeared, and indeed proved to be, undisturbed by tomb robbers. Andronikos opened Tomb II on November 8, 1977, through a keystone of the vault. His description of the first glance inside reflects his own excitement: he “was deeply stirred and awe-struck at the sight of a rich burial chamber which had remained untouched over the centuries from the moment when the marble doors had been shut after the last rites for the dead. . . . [He] felt a scientist’s elation and a desecrator’s guilt.”15 Within the tomb’s main chamber, into which Andronikos himself descended, a marble sarcophagus stood at the center of the back wall. To either side were the abundant funerary goods, including bronze and silver vessels of various shapes, sarissa and javelin points, three pairs of bronze greaves, an iron sword decorated with gold and still within its scabbard, an iron helmet, and an iron cuirass backed with leather and cloth and decorated with gold.16 Certain objects from Tomb II are particularly stunning in terms of their material and quality. A shield (the body of which was probably leather stretched over a wooden core) featured, at the center of its exterior face, a chryselephantine figural scene of a man standing over a woman, perhaps Achilles killing Penthesileia.17 A wooden couch also featured gold and ivory figural decoration, including two heads made famous by Andronikos, who identified them as portraits of Philip II and Alexander.18 Along with these items, a giltsilver band—identified, in keeping with the royal theme of the tomb, as a diadem or a strophos—is impressive for its imitation of woven cloth in metal (Fig. 13).19 The primary component of the band is a circular tube incised with lozenges; the ends of the tube fit into a shorter section, decorated to look like a knot made from the cloth’s ends. One final object worth mentioning was described by Andronikos in early publications as “a long cylindrical object, poorly preserved, . . . [the outside of which] was covered with cloth and gold in alternating layers.” He initially interpreted this object as a scepter.20 Within the marble sarcophagus at the center of the back wall was set a gold larnax, featuring a 16-pointed star on its lid. Inside the larnax were laid the cremated remains of the deceased. They were wrapped in a purple—“a dark blue, almost aubergine”—cloth, and placed in the larnax along with a gold wreath of oak leaves and acorns.21 The deposition of the remains is notably similar to that of the occupant of the nearby Tomb III. There, too, the occupant’s remains were wrapped in a purple cloth; they were deposited in a silver hydria rather than a larnax, but a gold wreath of oak leaves hung around the vessel’s neck and shoulders.22

AAAC FRANKS.indb 12

8/8/12 2:12 PM

introduction

• 13

Figure 13. “Diadem,” from Tomb II, Vergina, gold and silver, ca. 340– 300 b.c. Vergina, Archaeological Museum

Such practices resonate with what literary sources report about the treatment of Mace­ donian noblemen after death during the late 4th century. Hephaestion, often cast as the Patroklos to Alexander’s Achilles (Plut. Vit. Alex. 15.4), was honored with a colossal pyre (Diod. Sic. 115.1–4; Arr. Anab. 7.14.10), and we can easily locate in the description of his funeral certain parallels with what we find in Tomb II: valuable objects of precious metal were placed on Hephaestion’s pyre, including golden wreaths and weaponry, and gold and ivory figures were dedicated. As for Alexander himself, the great king’s casket was covered with a purple cloth, embroidered with gold (Diod. Sic. 18.26.4), a textile that sounds strikingly similar to those in which the cremated remains in Tombs II and III were wrapped.

The deposition of the remains in the tombs at Vergina not only accords with literary descriptions of these historical funerals, but also has parallels with funeral rituals described in epic literature.23 The funeral of the Trojan prince Hektor closes with the gathering of his bones from the pyre; his companions place them “in a golden urn, covering them over with soft purple robes” (Hom. Il. 24.795).24 Hektor’s companions then “laid the urn in a hollow grave, and covered it over with great close-set stones. Then quickly they heaped the mound” (24.796–799). Achilles’ remains, too, were placed in a golden urn after his pyre burned down (Hom. Od. 24.74). Equally evocative of Homeric funerals are the trappings and remains of horses associated with Tomb II’s pyre; their inclusion as part of the cremation recalls the pyre of Patroklos, onto which Achilles threw “four horses with high arched necks” (Hom. Il. 23.171). The use of heroic models will reappear in the discussion of the frieze in the chapters to follow, but it is worth underscoring here: whoever he was, the occupant of Tomb II enjoyed a burial on par with those of the Greek heroes.

Tomb II is made up of two chambers, a main chamber and an antechamber, separated by a marble door.25 Further finds awaited discovery in this antechamber, including, against the south wall, a second sarcophagus, similar to the one in the main chamber. Among the

AAAC FRANKS.indb 13

8/8/12 2:13 PM

14 •

introduction objects found in the antechamber were a gold wreath of myrtle, a spear, a gold gorytos (a Scythian-style quiver) with figural decoration, arrows, a pair of gilded greaves, and an iron pectoral (Fig. 14) with gilded silver covering.26 In the sarcophagus, Andronikos found a gold larnax (Fig. 15), smaller and simpler in its decoration than the one from the main chamber. It also contained cremated remains, wrapped in gold and purple cloth, and an exquisite gold headband featuring floral elements and intertwining vines. These remains belong to a female, who is generally identified as the wife of the deceased male in the main chamber. Scientific analysis suggests that she was in her late teens or early twenties at the time of her death.27 Although there are occasional voices of dissent, it has been widely accepted that the man and woman buried in Tomb II were members of Macedonian royalty.28 Contributing to this identification are the wealth and quality of the material with which they were interred, the tomb’s monumentality, and its enclosure along with two other built tombs within the Great Tumulus.29 In addition, it is particularly convincing that the remains were treated in a manner similar to that of high-ranking Macedonian noblemen (of Hephaestion and of Alexander himself), as described in literature. The recognition of these tombs as royal gains further support from the identification of Vergina as Aigai, where literary sources tell us the kingdom’s royal cemetery was located (Diod. Sic. 19.52.5; Plut.

Pyrrh. 26.12).30 For these reasons, the tombs will be treated here as royal—that is, as products of the Macedonian court, and more than simply “wealthy”—and, in the discussion to follow, I proceed with the understanding that the occupant of Tomb II was a member of the royal family.

The Painted Frieze The frieze on the facade of Tomb II is one of the most valuable features of the monument, and it reflects the resources dedicated to the commemoration of the deceased. It has broader significance as well, as a rare specimen from the corpus of Greek painting, the majority of which has not survived.31 Although the painting is extremely deteriorated and it is hard, in places, to see it clearly, the frieze provides a sophisticated example of a medium that is otherwise virtually lost to us. As Andronikos notes, “the rendering of the figures, the unexpected perspective, the mastery of the composition and the quality and alternations of color betray the work of a great painter.”32 Indeed, among the most attractive formal elements of the composition are the palette, which ranges from earth tones to pastels, and the depiction of the hunters in a variety of positions and from different points of view, including a horse and his rider seen from the back.33 A viewer’s attention turns first to the mounted hunter at the center of the scene (Figs.

4–7). The prominence of this horseman’s position is underscored when the frieze is viewed as part of the whole facade, since he appears above the central triglyph of the Doric frieze and above the central vertical seam of the tomb’s door (Figs. 2, 3). This hunter is not simply located in the middle of the painting, he is precisely on the monument’s main vertical axis. There is no position more prominent in this horizontal composition, and his placement here suggests his importance to the scene and to the tomb.34 He is further distinguished from his companions by other details as well: he wears a purple, belted tunic (a chitoniskos), and he is one of three in the group to hunt from horseback.35 He is beardless, and he is the only hunter in the scene to wear a wreath on his head.36

AAAC FRANKS.indb 14

8/8/12 2:13 PM

introduction

• 15

Figure 14. Pectoral, from the antechamber of Tomb II, Vergina, gold and silver, ca. 340–300 B.c.

Vergina, Archaeological Museum

Figure 15. Gold larnax, from the antechamber of Tomb II, Vergina, ca. 340–300 B.c. Vergina, Archaeological Museum

AAAC FRANKS.indb 15

8/8/12 2:13 PM

16 •

introduction This wreathed hunter directs a spear, held in his right hand, toward a lion in the middle of the right half of the frieze. His target, however, turns away, looking over its left shoulder at another horseman, who approaches from behind. As his horse rears, this horseman raises his spear. He, like the wreathed horseman, wears a chitoniskos, but he also wears a chlamys, visible at his left shoulder.37 With the notable exceptions of these two figures, and a third to be discussed below, all of the other hunters in the frieze are nude, even if they wear a chlamys or a kausia.38 Their nudity hints at the possible heroicizing nature of the scene, but it also marks the two clothed horsemen as distinct from their companions. The horseman on the right is distinguished in another way as well: he does not wear a wreath, but he alone among the hunters is fully bearded.39 In addition, like the wreathed hunter, whose centrality to the scene is underlined by his place at the midpoint in the horizontal axis, the bearded horseman also occupies a unique position in the composition. Every other figure in the painting is restricted to the panel’s lower two-thirds; neither of the other two horsemen (the central hunter and a deer hunter at the far left, to be discussed below) is lifted substantially above the heads of his companions on foot. The bearded horseman alone of the hunters occupies the upper third of the composition. That he is lifted above his fellow hunters suggests a formal privileging of this figure, and it underscores his role as one of the principal participants in the hunt.

The wreathed and bearded horsemen are the protagonists of the hunting scene: they are emphatically distinguished from their companions through the combination of their formal placement, their clothing, their position on horseback, and their possession of the unique attributes of wreath and beard. They will play substantial roles in the following discussion.

In addition to the two mounted lion hunters already described, two other men—and three dogs—are involved in the lion hunt.40 The leftmost man is nude, but wears a purplered chlamys fastened at his neck, and a kausia. Positioned at the lion’s head, he lunges to the right and directs his spear at the beast’s throat. He is beardless, although hatching on his right cheek might suggest the beginnings of a beard. The fourth of the lion hunters, positioned slightly behind and to the left of the beast, is beardless and nude, but for an orange-red chlamys. He leans to the left, raising an ax with both arms behind his head.

The central mounted hunter, facing the right, in the direction of the lion at which his spear is aimed, turns his back on the boar hunt, which takes place to the left of center (Fig. 8). In this boar hunt, one young, beardless hunter stands directly behind the head of the boar, leaning to the left, with his spear in his right hand (Fig. 9). He wears an orangered chlamys wrapped around his left arm, but he is otherwise nude. The other boar hunter, entirely nude, stands with his back to the viewer, holding his spear in both hands. That the central hunter turns his back on the boar seems, at first, to diminish the importance of this episode in comparison with the lion hunt, toward which his attention is directed. But, as some have argued, the frieze may depict a moment when the central hunter has just decisively struck the boar, and now turns to the lion hunt.41 The boar hunt does have a special place in the lives of young Macedonians (Hegesander ap. Ath. 1.18), and this hunt’s formal mirroring of the lion hunt in the right half of the composition hints that it has particular meaning for the group or for the central hunter.

To the lion and boar are added two more types of prey at either end of the frieze: two deer at far left and a bear at far right. The inclusion of additional prey underscores the scale

AAAC FRANKS.indb 16

8/8/12 2:13 PM

introduction

• 17

of the event, and emphasizes the performance of the hunt as a group endeavor. One deer has been wounded by a spear and lies on the rocks above the other, which a hunter has captured. This hunter, on the ground behind his quarry, lifts the animal’s head to expose its neck for a second hunter, who will finish off the captured prey with his spear. Both of the deer hunters are nude and beardless. The youth on the right, with the spear, is the third mounted hunter in the scene. This might seem to signal that he is equal in status to the mounted lion hunters, but this hunter and his horse turn their backs on the viewer, facing into the background and to the left, away from the center of the frieze—a position that discourages any reading of this horseman as a third protagonist in the hunt. In addition to his formal de-emphasis, he is also fully nude, and, aside from his horse, he has no additional attribute such as those that distinguish the central and bearded hunters from their companions.

At the opposite end of the frieze, to the right of the lion hunt, a man prepares to spear a bear, which lies among the rocks, as one of the deer does at the left end of the panel (Fig. 10). The bear has grasped a spent spear in his mouth and claws, breaking it, and his distraction provides the hunter below a clear shot.42 This hunter wears an orange chlamys, short boots, and a kausia, but he is otherwise nude. Shading on his chin and cheeks suggests the beginnings of a beard.

Further to the right of this hunter is one other figure, positioned in front of the rocks at the end of the scene. The third clothed hunter, he wears a brown tunic, a heavy, shaggy cloak (in contrast to the chlamydes worn by the others), and a hat.43 He holds a net. Given his position at the right edge of the frieze and the fact that he faces “out” of the painting to the right, he may indicate that the hunt continues in that direction with other prey or hunters in addition to those depicted. If the frieze is, for instance, a section copied from or inspired by a larger painting, and is limited here by the space of the panel, additional parts of the scene (from a few inches’ worth to whole other hunts) could have originally been included in either direction.44 Alternatively, because this figure turns away from the action of the big-game hunts, his importance in the scene may be, like that of the horseman at the left, de-emphasized.

This figure is a puzzle, not only because he is the only figure to hold a net, but also because he is clothed so differently from the others. It has recently been suggested that his woolly cloak and distinctive hat (which sits atop his head, rather than lower on the head like the cap worn by the bear hunter) may be a reference to traditional Macedonian clothing, and a nod to the claim that Philip transformed the Macedonians from a shepherd people, dressed in skins, to civilized city dwellers (Arr. Anab. 7.9.2).45 A reference to Macedonia’s past is appealing in the context of this investigation, but the role of this figure remains unclear. It might be clarified if we could determine what he is doing, but this section of the frieze has suffered particular damage, and is not easy to see in detail. He might be a second bear hunter, if the situation of the prey on this end of the frieze mirrors that of the left end.46 Perhaps he uses the net to corral the bear’s cubs? Alternatively, he might be a hare or fox hunter, since nets are common in small-game hunting (Xen. Cyn. 6.5–10), and he directs his attention to the ground as opposed to the rocks, where the mountain-dwelling bear lies. The inclusion of a hunter of small game could “round out” the hunting scene, but this fails to clarify his relationship to the rest of the scene and to the other hunters. Neither heroic hunts—which, I shall argue, are the models of the Vergina event—nor royal hunts

AAAC FRANKS.indb 17

8/8/12 2:13 PM

18 •

introduction target such game. Instead of being a hunter himself, this man may have corralled game for the other hunters, a practice that seems to have been common in the 4th century.47 But there are hints that dependence on nets was undesirable in royal hunts: Plutarch specifically casts net hunting (albeit with massive nets) as one of the extravagances condemned

by Alexander when his men started to “go soft” from the luxurious life at the Persian court (Vit. Alex. 40.1). And, although in the polis nets were used in practice for hunting (Xen. Cyn. 6.5–10, 9.11–20, 10.2–10), they are specifically rejected in Plato’s ideal version of the activity, in which the young athlete-hunters are to capture game by means of their own “running, striking, and shooting” (Leg. 824a–b). In any case, that this hunter’s clothing is so noticeably different from that of the big-game hunters may serve to underscore the contrasting types of hunts performed by these contrasting types of men.

The hunt takes place in an extensive and detailed landscape setting. Two leafless trees flank the central hunter. Their trunks and upper limbs have been broken or sawn off, though craggy branches remain along the trunk. To the right, a group of leafy trees is visible in the distance behind the lion hunt and the bearded horseman. The right and left ends of the panel are closed by rock faces, on which the bear and the deer have been caught; a dark strip at the left end of the frieze may represent an additional tree trunk. In the background, the sky is streaked with color. The rocky terrain in the foreground and the mountains visible behind the hunters suggest that the hunt takes place in a mountain setting.

The most prominent elements of the landscape are those nearest the boar hunt (Figs.

11, 12). A pillar stands between the two boar hunters, with three statues on top. Although they do not feature much visible detail, the identification of these objects as statues is suggested by their form, in which a shaft represents the body and a rounded piece on top indicates the head.48 Nearby, between the boar hunt and the deer hunter on horseback, is a tree—leafy, in contrast to the leafless trees flanking the central hunter. On the trunk of this tree hang a sash and votive tablet, as well as other ribbons and votive offerings. These elements, which are known from Greek representations of sacred shrines and sanctuaries, mark the space of the hunt as a sacred place.

The continuous nature of the landscape functions as a kind of stage for the action of the hunt, and it suggests that the painting should be read as a single scene in which each of the individual hunts (deer, boar, lion, bear) takes place contemporaneously and as part of one event. Reinforcing this understanding of place and time is the formal role played by the rock faces at either side, which both enclose and cohere the space between. But the nature of the composition, with its relatively self-contained hunting groups, has led some to suggest that the frieze might represent two or more independent vignettes—individual episodes that are chronologically or geographically distinct.49 Because the way in which the parts are related to the whole has a direct bearing on any reading of the scene, it is worth discussing explicitly the rationale for my reading of the geographical and chronological integrity of the image as a representation of a single scene, before moving on to further questions of interpretation.

In art-historical terminology, the representation of distinct scenes together in a single pictorial frame is called continuous narrative.50 Normally, this term is employed to describe a series of scenes that represent sequential episodes from a larger story, and so repeat a single character as he moves from one narrative moment to the next; the Telephos frieze from the Great Altar at Pergamon is a famous example. While in the Vergina frieze

AAAC FRANKS.indb 18

8/8/12 2:13 PM

introduction

• 19

the horizontal format and the arrangement of the hunting party into smaller groups of men might hint at internal divisions of this type, two major points argue against reading the scene as a continuous narrative made up of a series of distinct events. First, the visual construction of continuous narrative usually depends upon the repetition of at least one actor, which signals the progressive narrative relationship between the individual scenes.

In the Vergina frieze, however, no single actor is repeated. The most distinctive figures, and therefore those that might most likely represent a single, repeated personage, are the two figures that hunt from horseback and wear the chitoniskoi. The inclusion of both men in the single narrative moment of the lion hunt, however, shatters the structure of a wouldbe continuous construction, in which each discrete episode is necessarily self-contained “with separate and centered actions” that preserve their individual “unity of time and place.”51 The formal structure of continuous narrative aside, without the clear repetition of an individual in multiple “scenes,” it is difficult to understand what the depiction of two (or more) hunts would contribute to the painting’s overarching purpose as a celebration of the man buried in the tomb.

The second point against recognizing multiple independent episodes in the frieze involves the process of reading the image. The imposition of a progressive, narrative structure on this kind of frieze panel implies a reading of the scene from left to right, as a written text, following the understanding that what comes “first” is laid out “first” in the image (as is the case in the Telephos frieze, mentioned above, which reflects a visitor’s progress around the monument). The natural viewing order of our visual text, however, does not begin at the left. Rather, it starts at the center, where we began our discussion of the frieze above.52 From the central hunter, the natural direction for viewing is to the right, in the direction toward which he has turned his attention, and where the concentrated action of the lion hunt takes place. The hunts in the left half of the frieze are not the first that the viewer turns to, but, in fact, the last, a hierarchy confirmed by the visual de-emphasis of the mounted deer hunter. Further, the central horseman does not segregate the two halves of the painting, but he visually ties them together, since there is good reason to read him as having just turned from the boar hunt to assist his companions with the lion. A final and compelling reason to consider the Vergina frieze as a single, coherent episode is the extensive body of visual comparanda—from Greece, the western Persian empire, and Thrace— that show the multi-quarry group hunt as a single event, unified in time.53

Questions about the Frieze As the questions about the chronological and geographical coherence of the scene suggest, the Vergina frieze has presented substantial challenges in interpretation. Even now, more than 30 years after its discovery, questions about the theme, its origin, and its meaning, both for the protagonists of the scene and for the man whose tomb it adorns, remain unanswered. The chapters to follow will focus on two aspects of the frieze that might offer some promising inroads for broader inquiries into the crafting and maintenance of the Macedonian royal image.

First are the horsemen. The men that I have picked out as the protagonists have long been recognized as the main figures in the scene, and scholars have concentrated overwhelmingly on identifying them as particular historical individuals connected, for the most part, to the court of Philip or Alexander. Indeed, they may reflect historical men—a

AAAC FRANKS.indb 19

8/8/12 2:13 PM

20 •

introduction correspondence that might explain, in part, why they are so carefully distinguished from their companions. But apart from their potential historical identities, which we do not know, what does it say about the horsemen that they appear as horsemen? Does this help to understand who they are and why they are worthy of being protagonists in this scene?

Second is the hunt. The theme of the group hunt dilutes the role of any single hunter (including both protagonists), and so might seem unexpected in the context of a tomb, which honors a single man, the deceased. Scholars have often assumed that the point of the image is to reference a historical hunt involving members of the Macedonian court, and they often locate this event in the reign of Alexander, who, we hear, enjoyed hunting during his campaigns in Persia. This assumption, however, has unduly limited the painting’s potential to represent anything other than this kind of event, and it fails to explain fully both the significance of the group endeavor and its suitability in this context as a theme for the commemoration of an individual. The landscape presents additional difficulties, since it is not clear how this sacred locale is tied to the theme of the hunt. Might this hunt reflect not a specific historical experience, but another kind of event entirely?

These specific aspects of the Tomb II scene tie into larger, and closely related, questions about the painting’s status as a product of and, by extension, a reflection of Mace­ donian royal interests. Does the painting’s iconography incorporate traditions of royal self-expression that already existed in Macedonia? And how does the painting contribute to the public image of the deceased as a member of the Macedonian court?

Previous scholarship on the Vergina hunt does address some of these concerns, and most interpretations of the frieze have fallen, very generally, into two categories. In the first, the hunt is seen as offering a visual structure within which the hunters represent either hierarchical offices within the Macedonian court or sequential stages of manhood through which the Macedonian male passes. In the second, the painting is thought to depict an historical event—either a specific one, or a generic version that might represent any or all royal Macedonian hunts.

In “hierarchical” interpretations, scholars have sometimes divided the young hunters according to their clothing, so that those who are entirely nude are in a group distinct from those who wear a kausia or chlamys, and all these have a different status from the mounted lion hunters, who wear chitoniskoi. Anna Maria Prestianni Giallombardo proposes that each hunter’s clothing (that is, his chitoniskos, chlamys, or chlamys with kausia) reflects his association with one of the institutions of the Macedonian court, the basilikoi paides, the philoi, or the somatophylakes, the bodyguards of the king.54 Miltiades B. Hatzopoulos also sees an arrangement based on institutions known to have existed within the Macedonian court; further, he equates those institutions to the stages through which elite Macedonian males passed as they came of age. For Hatzopoulos, the hunters’ clothing, particularly the chlamys and the chitoniskos, serve as markers of each stage of youth.55 The frieze then would reflect a progressive movement from the nude deer hunters at the left to the group of basilikoi paides, who wear the chlamys, to the basilikoi neaniskoi, who wear the belted chitoniskos.56 Hatzopoulos also mentions an additional group of youths, the kynegoi, the hunters, who were connected to the cult of Herakles Kynagidas in Macedonia, and who wore dark (pelloi) chlamydes. The role of the kynegoi in Macedonia—whether they guarded game on hunting preserves, or protected fortified points in the countryside, or were primarily a cultic group—remains unclear.57

AAAC FRANKS.indb 20

8/8/12 2:13 PM

introduction

• 21

In contrast to these readings, which see the frieze as a reflection of the court’s inner institutional structure through which elite youths passed, interpretations from the “historical” camp have seen the hunt as a representation of an actual episode. In this scheme, the painting is either a rendering of “The Royal Hunt” as an idealized (or generic) version of familiar courtly practices, or a specific event in which certain historical personages participated. Olga Palagia, for example, in her study of the frieze and its iconography published in 2000, proposed that the image commemorates an event that took place in the hunting gardens at Babylon in 323, when Kassander, the son of the Macedonian nobleman Antipatros and eventually a king of Macedonia, arrived at Alexander’s court there.58 She identifies a number of the hunters as historical individuals, including Alexander (the central horseman), Kassander (the kausia-wearing hunter with the spear at the lion’s head), and Philip III Arrhidaios, another son of Philip II (the bearded horseman). She further sees in the frieze Kassander’s younger brothers (the boar hunters) and a Persian nobleman, perhaps a brother of one of Alexander’s wives (in the marginal position at the far right, preparing to use the unheroic net).59 Palagia’s identification of nearly all of the figures in the scene with members of Alexander’s court represents an extreme, but other scholars do identify certain of the hunters— especially the two mounted lion hunters—as specific historical individuals, even if they do not connect the hunt to a known historical event. Chrysoula Saatsoglou-Paliadeli identifies the horsemen as Alexander (the central hunter) and his father, Philip II (the bearded hunter).60 The inclusion of recognizable historical personages within what she sees as a Macedonian landscape reflects the nature of the scene as a hunt that could be historical, even if it is not known from literary sources.61 Lorenz Baumer and Ursula Weber, in contrast, see the hunt as a kind of idealized or epitomizing event, which could represent, in a sense, any Macedonian royal hunt. But they, too, identify three of the hunters as probable representations of historical personages.62 While Bruno Tripodi likewise rejects a reading of the scene as a “photographic” rendering of an actual event, he suggests that Alexander IV and Arrhidaios might be represented in it.63 This recognition of individuals in the scene and the related interpretations of the hunt have been intimately related to scholars’ positions on the date of Tomb II and the identification of the man buried within. Baumer and Weber, followed by Tripodi, believe that the painting likely reflects the political maneuvering of Kassander, whom they consider as the patron of Tomb II, in which they argue Arrhidaios was buried.64 Palagia, too, sees the frieze as a commission on the part of Kassander, who buried Arrhidaios in 316 as a way of securing his own position as heir to the Macedonian throne. In her interpretation, the scene links Kassander not only to Arrhidaios, but also to Alexander, with whom he is shown hunting.65 Saatsoglou-Paliadeli also sees the frieze as reinforcing a certain political relationship, but the one between Alexander and his father, Philip II, to whom she believes the tomb belongs.66

The Date of Tomb II The common reading of the Tomb II frieze as a representation of a historical event is made problematic by the fact that there is neither a secure date for the monument nor a consensus on who was buried inside. This uncertainty does not stem from a lack of scholarly interest: the issue of the date and the corresponding question of the identity of the tomb’s

AAAC FRANKS.indb 21

8/8/12 2:13 PM

22 •

introduction occupant have dominated discussion of the monument, and remain the primary concern.

Almost since the moment of the tomb’s discovery, two possibilities for the date of the tomb have been recognized. The first, originally proposed by Andronikos, is that the tomb dates to 336, and was built for Philip II, the father of Alexander the Great. The alternative proposal is that the monument dates to 316, and that the deceased within is Arrhidaios, the other son of Philip II and half-brother of Alexander, who nominally co-ruled the kingdom of Macedonia with Alexander IV from Alexander’s death in 323 until he was assassinated in 317. Despite frequent revisiting of the chronology, the question of the date is far from fully resolved.

My position is that the date of Tomb II, and of the painted frieze, is still open. Certain aspects of the tomb, particularly the associated pottery, seem to support a date later than 336. But archaeological evidence from this period and from this region is complicated, although current excavations promise to clarify Macedonian chronology, and the 20-year difference between 336 and 316 is a relatively small one. While certain arguments may seem to tip the scales away from Philip II, they do not offer positive evidence for the identification of the deceased as Arrhidaios. It will be most productive for our purposes, therefore, to consider Tomb II as belonging to a range of possible dates in the second half of the 4th century B.c. More precisely, I shall approach my investigation of the painting assuming a possible date range of ca. 340–300 B.c. While I shall argue in the following chapters that certain elements of the Vergina frieze circulated in Macedonia prior to the reign of Alexander, I do not intend to use these elements as a definitive argument in favor of any date for the frieze or the tomb.

A discussion of the date here would be a significant, and, given my position on the issue, unnecessary digression from our topic of the frieze; for arguments related to the dating of the tomb, along with potential reservations regarding the reliability of individual pieces of evidence, I refer the reader to the Appendix. Worth considering in greater detail here, however, is the impact that this concern with the date of the tomb has had on certain interpretations of the frieze. We have seen this influence already, in the impulse to name individuals and to associate the event with a particular historical episode, even while the very existence of such ongoing attempts attests to the impossibility of proving any of these proposals. In a similar vein, the identification of certain elements of the painting—specifically the hunt from horseback and the hunt of a lion—as “Persianizing” has both stemmed from and contributed to scholars’ focus on the date of the painting as a primary concern. Such identification has often depended on the argument that the lion hunt from horseback is only conceived of as a visual theme in the Hellenic and Macedonian world after Macedonians experienced firsthand big-game hunts in the East, either in practice or in visual representations.67 Thus, these arguments cast Alexander’s conquests as a terminus post quem for the appearance of these iconographic elements in a painting in Macedonia.

But even if the painting dates to the generation following Alexander’s reign, it does not necessarily follow that the iconography is only meaningful in relationship to this famous Macedonian king. Nor does it mean that the Macedonian court turned its back on powerful local traditions in favor of a new iconography or symbolism that reflects Eastern royal ideals, or even in favor of Alexander’s model of kingship that developed while he was in the East.

AAAC FRANKS.indb 22

8/8/12 2:13 PM

introduction

• 23

Of course, we must—and I do—make use of the available sources, but the tendency to interpret iconography only in connection to a historical moment and to historical individuals has restricted interpretations of the frieze in two ways. First, the identification of the image as a representation of a royal hunt—specific or generalizing, recorded in literature or not—confines the interpretation to certain kinds of events that are described in historical sources, or to events that are like those described in historical sources. Second, situating the creation of the frieze within a highly particularized historical moment has attached to the painting meanings that are based on details of politics, motivations, and personalities of that specific context. This, in turn, has minimized consideration of the influence of existing traditions that would have been recognizable and meaningful to the Macedonian viewers of the painting.

Approach and Outline of Chapters My approach focuses on the existing traditions, literary and visual, out of which the theme of the group hunt and the Macedonian hunt from horseback issue. I consider the group hunt and the horseman as, in a sense, autonomous iconographic themes that are meaningful in their own right. It is my contention that the central and bearded figures, the protagonists, take on a certain meaning in relationship to these themes—that is, through their participation as horsemen in this hunt. This is in contrast to the inverse construction that has often dominated scholarship, in which the event is primarily meaningful because certain individuals, whom we might hear about in the historical record, participate in it. The Vergina hunt is, instead, a visual expression of a Macedonian conception of (Macedonian) kingship, within which a traditional, local royal ideal is negotiated within a paradigm offered by the world of the Hellenic heroes.

In this attempt to shift the parameters of the study of Macedonian material, I am in the company of Ada Cohen, whose recent work on Macedonian art has demonstrated the productivity of approaches that frame the historical moment within the longue durée of cultural structures.68 She focuses on the themes of the hunt, battle, and the abduction of women that not only served as metaphors for one another, but also perpetuated specific hierarchies and ideologies, instantiating “the masculine cultural self, filtered through the collectively egocentric self.”69 The relevance of Cohen’s analysis for our purposes is not simply her reading of these images outside of historical instances of such events, but her assertion that the images themselves participate in the construction of the elite male’s selfimage during this period. Putting aside the belabored questions of chronology and the historical veracity of a given image, Cohen has instead read the Macedonian visual sources against their broad cultural context, with significant results.

My approach, while it complements Cohen’s broader study, is largely indebted to work in Greek vase painting over the last several decades, and in particular to scholars who have considered images as a structure like language, in which the relationship of signs to reality is recognized as complex, even if it is “poorly understood.”70 This work is in contrast, moreover, to an approach that primarily identifies images as either scenes of myth or scenes of history (or “genre” scenes representing the practices of daily life). That such a division between myth and history has, in fact, framed much of the discussion surrounding the Vergina frieze is particularly explicit in scholars’ repeated references to “non-mythological” or “biographical” hunts and to the “non-mythological character” of the scene.71

AAAC FRANKS.indb 23

8/8/12 2:13 PM

24 •

introduction This terminology posits a clear opposition between their understanding of the scene as representing a nearly contemporary historical event, and something mythical, presumably a specific story involving identifiable heroes or gods. Even those who argue that the scene reflects the institutional structure of the court depend on that structure’s currency within the contemporary kingdom.

But the accuracy and usefulness of this kind of division of visual themes between the mythological and the non-mythological (reality) has been questioned. In the context of Greek vase painting, Jan Bažant, Christiane Sourvinou-Inwood, and Gloria Ferrari, among others, have attempted to draw attention both to the often arbitrary nature by which images are assigned to these modern categories and to the restrictions implied in such a division.72 In fact, the distinction that we see between myth and the historical, including events from daily life, was not a clear one in ancient Greek thought, where, as Ferrari describes, “history extends seamlessly into the heroic past and ‘mythical’ races, such as the Amazons, carry on with their lives in remote areas” of the Classical world.73 In the case of royal Macedonians, this particular point is an essential one to understand, even during and after the eventful and important reign of Alexander. The Macedonian past includes both the inherited past of the kingdom’s “historical” rulers, but also extends, through them, into its legendary (and, at least in the 4th century, imagined) founders, and, from there, into the world of their heroic predecessors. These ancient kings and heroes provided paradigms in which contemporary Macedonian royalty might locate models of behavior, and through which contemporary royalty might affirm its legitimate position (to be further discussed in Chapters 1 and 4). The similarities mentioned above between the Vergina burials and those of epic heroes offer one example of an active connection between, or even collapsing of, contemporary subjects and the past. Through the appeal to specific paradigms, the Vergina frieze, too, depicts its protagonists as the fulfillment of certain ideals embodied by the kingdom’s royal and heroic pasts, and positions them as members of the ancient royal Macedonian line.

The frieze’s two protagonists, the lion-hunting horsemen, are the subject of the first chapter, “The Hunters.” Here, I address the problems inherent in identifying certain aspects of the frieze as “Persianizing,” and I identify and delineate the iconographic traditions of Classical Macedonia, which offer models for the positioning of the king on horseback and the lion hunt. The horseman, a figure ubiquitous on the regal coinage of Macedonia in the 5th century, offers a visual manifestation of the idea of the Macedonian king—a portrait of the office as much as, or even more than, the individual that held the title. In the Vergina frieze, the mounted position of our protagonist hunters locates them within this long-standing visual tradition of the mounted king, aligning them with both the ideal conception of “the King” that he represents and the line of Argead men who have previously held that office.

Chapter 2, “The Hunt,” expands the investigation from the hunters to the larger group endeavor, and I locate similar kinds of hunts in the epic tradition, in stories where a young hero accompanies the male members of his family on a hunt in the wild. For the epic youth, success in this hunt signals his initiation into adulthood and his acceptance as a mature member of the family and of society, represented by the mature males that accompany him in this event. These heroic hunts supply a mythic model for the group hunt as it is represented on the Vergina frieze, and in this funerary context, the theme commemo-

AAAC FRANKS.indb 24

8/8/12 2:13 PM

introduction

• 25

rates the integration of the young hunter into society. The recognition of the group hunt as a heroic type of hunt implies the elevation of the participants, or, at least, the protagonists, to the status of heroes; this issue will be taken up in the final chapter.

In Chapter 3, “The Landscape,” I investigate the landscape within which the hunt takes place. The votive elements included in this otherwise natural setting mark the space as sacred, although Greek sacred ground is not, normally, an appropriate site for the hunt.

In Greek vase painting, such features characterize the settings for mythological and epic stories, and it is alongside these mythic locales that the Vergina landscape should be considered. The sacral landscape elements appear in the Vergina frieze precisely because they have the potential to represent a kind of place that is outside of the chronological or geographical present—a suitable setting for events of the mythic, heroic, and ancient ancestral pasts. This interpretation of the landscape gains support from two genres of Roman painting: mythological landscapes and so-called sacral-idyllic landscapes. In each, the same sacral elements included in the Vergina landscape describe spaces that are equally appropriate settings for idealized pastoral shepherds, the monsters of mythology, and the heroes of the past. The space becomes pastoral, mythological, or heroic through association with the scene that unfolds within. In the Vergina frieze, as in these parallels, it is not the landscape that determines locale, but the event with which it is associated. The nature of the setting takes its cue from the heroic nature of the event held within it, and in this way, in the Vergina frieze, the landscape has the capacity to contribute to the identification of the hunt with hunts from the past.

The concluding chapter brings together various strands of discussion. Having delineated, in the earlier chapters, two paradigms to which the horsemen and the hunt appeal, in Chapter 4, “Heroes and Kings,” I introduce comparanda for the use of similar paradigms to describe and elevate historical individuals. In this context, the victory odes of Pindar serve as a particularly productive foil for the Vergina frieze. Pindar makes use of heroic paradigms to define and elevate the deeds of the current subject in relationship to a hero, and he positions his contemporary subject as both the beneficiary and fulfillment of a particular lineage that extends from the immediate glory, through his recent family, and into the ancient, heroic past. Likewise, adherence to a paradigmatic structure in the Vergina frieze aligns our protagonists with the kings of Macedonia’s past—a line that reaches, ultimately, to the heroic world. In this way, the protagonists, one of which is likely to represent the deceased buried in Tomb II, take on a certain identity not simply as members of the Macedonian court, but as the inheritors of a long line of dynastic kingship, and as individuals who fulfill the expectations set by the kingdom’s early, heroic rulers. This interpretation suggests that, far from recording the details of a single historical event, the Vergina frieze presents a distinctive idea of kingship that was rooted in the persistence of tradition and in the continued relevance of the past, even as the kingdom’s interests expanded to embrace a new world empire.

Thus, in the following chapters I offer a new interpretation of the Vergina frieze, in which the protagonists appeal to the double paradigms of the horseman and the heroic group hunt. I also suggest new possibilities for approaching the culture of the Macedonian court. The Macedonian kingdom was, after all, a conservative place, as Ada Cohen has discussed. Here, courtly practices and a political structure similar to that of the Homeric world—in which a dynastic kingship was supported by the army, which “occasionally ex-

AAAC FRANKS.indb 25

8/8/12 2:13 PM

26 •

introduction pressed opinion,” and by a close group of companions from among the nobility—either survived from the pre-Classical world or were revived, even once democracy was well established elsewhere.74 This is precisely the kind of context in which we would expect the image of the king to depend on deeply rooted expectations of royal behavior and iconography, and on comparison to the hero-kings of the epic world. This definition of the king, and the traditions on which it was based, would have continued to be culturally meaningful, even during and after a reign as monumental as Alexander’s.

What I aim to do, even for those who will disagree with my interpretive conclusions, is to open a new kind of discussion of the frieze, in which the full range of iconographic possibilities might be considered, so that scholars might begin to move away from the restrictive dependence on the historical episodes of Alexander’s reign as the exclusive or primary foundation for interpretation. This discussion, I hope, will focus attention on the social meaning of iconography and material evidence in the context of broad visual and cultural traditions within the Macedonian kingdom—traditions that developed under the influence of Macedonia’s long dynastic history and its location at a cultural crossroads. To lay the foundation, I turn in the following chapters to the three major players in my interpretation of the Tomb II frieze: the hunters, the hunt, and the landscape.

AAAC FRANKS.indb 26

8/8/12 2:13 PM

CHAPTER ONE

The Hunters

AAAC FRANKS.indb 27

8/8/12 2:13 PM

28 •

T

•

he protagonists of the Vergina hunting scene, the central youth and the mature rider, are marked as distinct from their companions in multiple ways.

Two of the things that distinguish them are their position on horseback and their participation in the lion hunt—elements sometimes identified as “Persianizing” and associated with Alexander’s time in the East. This chapter will examine these aspects of the Vergina frieze in light of local traditions, considering them as visual motifs with meaning within Macedonia, and exploring the implications of their insertion into the group hunt.

The Hunt in The Near East The lion hunt of the Vergina frieze has attracted a great deal of scholarly attention. As an iconographic theme, it has often been connected to the East, where it was a practice intimately associated with the role and ideology of the Persian king, and where it has a history as a royal theme even long before the foundation and expansion of the Persian empire. Given its prominence there, some have recognized the inclusion of a lion hunt in the Vergina hunting scene as a “Persianizing” element, an import from the East, inspired by the customs or iconography of the Achaemenid court.1 They have sought support for this connection to royal Persian practices in other elements of the scene, particularly the lion’s appearance alongside other kinds of prey, and the performance of the hunt from horseback. Since the bear, boar, deer, and lion occupy different kinds of landscapes in the wild (Xen. Cyn. 9.2, 9.11, 10.6, 11.1–2), their appearance together in the hunting scene has been seen as a reference to the abundance and variety of beasts kept and hunted in paradeisoi, or royal Persian game parks. And the hunt from horseback is a practice that Greek sources seem to associate with the Persian court, while mounted hunters appear only infrequently in the hunts depicted in Greek red-figure vase painting.2 Thus, it will be useful to begin our discussion with the iconography and practice of royal hunts in the East. The theme of the hunt in fact has a long and distinguished history in the ancient Near East that extends over millennia, reaching its artistic culmination in the sculptural reliefs that adorned the walls of the palaces of Neo-Assyrian kings. In these reliefs and in textual sources, the king is the primary hunter, and he pursues a variety of animals. On the walls of the Throne Room (Room B) of the Northwest Palace at Nimrud, built by Ashurnasirpal (r. 883–859), the king hunts lions and bulls, and offers libations over the bodies of the slain prey.3 Juxtaposed with scenes of battles and city sieges in which the king prevailed, and with processions of captives, the hunts reinforce the role of the ruler as the victorious conqueror of every kind of adversary. Some generations later, in the mid-7th century, Ashurbanipal (r. 668–627) also incorporated the hunt as part of his public ideology, declaring in an inscription, “I Assurbanipal . . . seized a lion of the plain by its tail . . . I smashed its skull with my own mace.”4 His palace at Nineveh, like Ashurnasirpal’s, featured hunts as a prominent part of the decoration. The wall reliefs depict the pursuit of gazelles, stags, and onagers,5 but it is Ashurbanipal’s lion hunts that are the most widely known. In these, the king attacks his prey with various weapons (bow and arrow, spear, dagger) from a horse or a chariot, and in one scene he is even depicted in one-on-one combat (Figs. 16, 17).6 A series of reliefs in which Assyrian citizens watch from a nearby hill as the king slays eighteen lions in an arena may represent a royal ceremony. This event has been interpreted as a metaphor for the king’s protection of the city—and the civilized society it symbolizes—through his taming of the chaos of nature that threatens from the outside.7

AAAC FRANKS.indb 28

8/8/12 2:13 PM

the hunters

• 29

Figure 16. Ashurbanipal hunting lions with a spear from a chariot, wall relief, Room C, panel 22, North Palace of Ashurbanipal, Nineveh, ca. 668–627 B.c. London, British Museum 124852

Figure 17. Ashurbanipal grappling with a lion, wall relief, Room S, panel 11, North Palace of Ashurbanipal, Nineveh, ca. 668– 627 B.c. London, British Museum 124874

AAAC FRANKS.indb 29

8/8/12 2:13 PM

30 •

Figure 18. Persian in combat with lion, west gate, Palace of Darius, Persepolis, ca. 515–480 B.c.

AAAC FRANKS.indb 30

chapter one Although Greek sources indicate that the popularity of the hunt as a royal exercise continued in the Persian period, monumental representations of the royal hunt are less common.

Reliefs from the Achaemenid palace at Persepolis do show a standing figure who engages in combat with lions, bulls, and composite monsters; he typically grasps the beast with one hand, and stabs it with a dagger held in the other (Fig. 18).8 The depiction of a close struggle, in which the human figure clearly dominates, suggests that these Persian reliefs, like the Ashurbanipal hunt, may reflect the empire’s control over—or warding off of— the destructive forces of nature. But the figure is normally identified as a “hero,” not as the king, and he indeed lacks the crown that we expect to see in representations of the Persian king. For our purposes, in any case, these Persian reliefs are combat scenes, not hunts.

The image of the king used on the Persian darics—the coinage named after Darius I, who initiated the type—shows the king, wearing a crown and the royal robe, with bow and arrows in hand. In all but the earliest of the series, he runs forward aggressively. The object of his action is not pictured, but the image has been read as an expression of the king’s role as hunter-protector, whose successes against the wild forces of chaos provide stability and prosperity for the kingdom.9 Hunts in which the narrative action is more explicit are depicted on seals and sealings, represented in large part by a significant group of tablets from the Fortification Archive at the palace of Persepolis, and by additional groups from the satrapal capitals, particularly that of Daskyleion.10 In some examples, the king himself appears; on a seal in the British Museum, he hunts lions from a chariot, and an inscription identifies him as “Darius, the Great King” (Fig. 19).11 But in many of the seals, as in the Persepolis reliefs, the hunter does not appear to be the king, since he appears without royal regalia, even if he is still recognizable as a Persian. The figure pursues boar, lion, stag and deer, on rare occasions bear, and even, as in the reliefs at Persepolis, composite monsters. He also employs a variety of techniques, hunting on foot, from a chariot, or from horseback, and he may use a spear, or, as in examples from the Persepolis Fortification tablets, a bow and arrow.12 This diversity suggests the value of broad expertise in different methods of hunting and against a variety of prey, each of which represents distinct challenges. Likewise, although it describes the king as a warrior, an inscription from the Tomb of Darius underscores the value placed on a range of skills, even in a royal context: “As a horseman I am a good horseman; as a bowman, I am a good bowman, both on foot and on horseback; as a spearman, I am a good spearman both on foot and on horseback.”13

8/8/12 2:13 PM

the hunters

• 31

Figure 19. Darius I hunting from a chariot, agate cylinder seal (left) and its sealing (right), ca. 522–486 B.c. London, British Museum ME 89132

Each of these skills is used and fostered in the hunt, as well as in battle, and these are skills essential to his running of the empire.14 The multi-participant, multi-quarry hunt—a theme much closer to the Vergina hunt than the solitary hunts of Persian royalty—takes on a new visual prestige and popularity in the Late Classical period as part of the elite funerary iconography of the western Persian empire. The outstanding examples come primarily from the royal cemetery at Sidon, in Phoenicia, and from Asia Minor, where hunts are included on the architrave frieze of the Nereid Monument at Xanthos, among the friezes of the Heroon at Trysa, and in a sculptural group on the famous Mausoleion of Halikarnassos. The Mausoleion and the Alexander Sarcophagus of Abdalonymos at Sidon are dated by the deaths of their owners to around 350 and 310, respectively, but all are considered as works of the late 5th or 4th centuries. Most predate the reign of Alexander the Great and the construction of Tomb II, and all are likely the products of Greek workshops. Visually, these sources provide intriguing parallels for the Vergina hunt: they feature the pursuit of multiple types of game and they adhere to the same horizontal format as the frieze, although they lack the depth of field that is so expressively rendered in the Vergina painting. But these monuments are more useful to us for another reason. They highlight the difficulties of parsing iconographic elements according to what modern observers recognize as “Greek” or “Eastern” elements with “Greek” or “Eastern” meanings, even when dealing with monuments within the Persian empire. Further, they cast doubt on the assumption, often invoked in discussions of the Vergina frieze, that the nature of certain elements as “Persian” was recognized by the ancient audience and linked to specific historical interactions between Greeks (or Macedonians) and Persians. Indeed, these monuments defy an approach that depends on their existence as an insulated Eastern corpus: they interweave themes common in Assyrian and Persian royal courts with mythology, sculptural styles, and formal compositions that suggest heavy Hellenic influence. As Cohen has noted, given the hunt’s heroic associations in Greece, it “proved easy pictorially to naturalize the Near Eastern royal paradigm and embed it within traditional Greek models of visual communication.”15 The hunting scene from the Mausoleion survives only in fragments, and so the examination of the large-scale hunt on the funerary monuments of Asia Minor must focus on the more complete Trysa Heroon and the Nereid Monument, on which one deer has

AAAC FRANKS.indb 31

8/8/12 2:13 PM

32 •

chapter one already been killed and is carried away, while hunters pursue a bear and a boar.16 At Trysa, the hunt appears twice in a sculptural program that also includes two Amazonomachies and two centauromachies, the Seven Against Thebes, battles and city sieges, and Bellerophon fighting the Chimaera—all highly Hellenic themes. One hunt, located on the southwest interior wall, is that of the Kalydonian boar, a mythic hunt discussed in more detail below. On the north interior wall, juxtaposed with the well-known mythical event, is the other hunt scene, in which figures on foot and on horseback target a variety of game— ibexes, bears, panthers, and a boar.17 Here, the pairing of the explicit mythological scene with another hunt, similar to those in which the dynast may have participated, not only likens the two scenes and creates the impression of an elevated royal grandeur, but may also elevate the participants of the latter hunt to the heroic status of the Kalydonian hunters through visual simile.18 In Phoenician Sidon, four sarcophagi in the royal cemetery include relief scenes of group hunts.19 On the so-called Satrap Sarcophagus, the hunt is restricted to one side, on which four Persian horsemen confront a deer and a panther (detail shown in Fig. 20).20 The unfortunate rightmost hunter (not pictured) has fallen from his horse, and, still clasping the trappings, he is dragged away from the other hunters.21 Opposite this scene, on the sarcophagus’s other side, a Persian (perhaps one of the hunters) is shown enthroned, while his chariot—a clear sign of both his Eastern identity and his elite status—is prepared in front of him. Here, in perhaps the earliest of the Sidonian sarcophagi, the iconography includes only Persian figures, even if the style and poses seem Greek.22 In other examples, however, even the recognition of iconographic features as “Persian” becomes difficult. On the Lycian Sarcophagus, the hunt is featured on the two long sides.23 On side A, five horsemen—including men dressed in Greek and Persian attire that ranges from nude to fully clothed—converge on a boar (Fig. 21).24 On side B, two hunters are each driven in a four-horse chariot (Fig. 22). Their prey, a lion, crouches in the right side of the panel; a hole at the muzzle indicates that it once held a spear in its mouth.25 The spectacle of the chariot certainly has a royal flair, and one thinks immediately of the lion hunts of Ashurbanipal and of the images on Achaemenid glyptic, in which the king does battle with a lion from a chariot. That there are two chariots and two hunters, however, is unusual in Achaemenid and even in Persian Anatolian iconography. Some discussions of

Figure 20. Panther hunt, Satrap Sarcophagus, late 5th or early 4th century B.c. Istanbul, Archaeological Museum 367

AAAC FRANKS.indb 32

8/8/12 2:13 PM

• 33

the hunters

Figure 21. Boar hunt, Lycian Sarcophagus, late 5th or early 4th century B.c. Istanbul, Archaeological Museum 369

Figure 22. Lion hunt from chariots, Lycian Sarcophagus, late 5th or early 4th century B.c. Istanbul, Archaeological Museum 369

this lion hunt have identified the hunters in the chariots not as Persians in a royal para­ deisos, but as Amazons, a possibility that has been revisited most recently by Marie-Theres Langer-Karrenbrock.26 If this is the case, the Lycian Sarcophagus, rather than using Persian iconographic elements to depict a Persian scene, may instead reflect a conception of the East, based on figures from Hellenic mythology.

AAAC FRANKS.indb 33

8/8/12 2:13 PM

34 •

chapter one In any event, either interpretation of the figures on the Lycian sarcophagus—as Persian princes or Amazons—underscores the difficulties in transferring Achaemenid meaning to apparently Persianizing iconographic elements, even on monuments within the Persian empire. In addition to the scenes on the Satrap and the Lycian sarcophagi, the socle of the Mourning Women Sarcophagus features a diminutive, if relatively extensive hunt in low relief; along the long sides, hunters target a bear, boars, panthers, and deer, while on the short sides the bodies of deer and of a boar are carried by men, and stags, captured alive, are led by their antlers.27 Dating to the period after Alexander’s death is the most famous of the Sidonian monuments: the Alexander Sarcophagus, which juxtaposes relief scenes of the hunt with scenes of battles between Greeks and Persians.28 On one of the short sides, a group hunts a panther, but it is on one of the long sides that the major hunt takes place (Fig. 23). At the right end of this panel, a Greek and a Persian hunt a stag. Nude but for a chlamys fastened around his neck, the Greek grasps the stag’s antlers to expose the neck of the beast to the Persian, who is poised to strike with an ax. Most of the hunters, however, focus their attention on the center of this scene, where a lion—soon to be a victim himself—mauls the chest of a Persian hunter’s horse (Fig. 24). This man, riding to the right and dressed in full Persian costume (including long sleeves and trousers, a kidaris, or soft, floppy headgear that wraps around the lower face, and a cloak called the kandys, the sleeves of which are worn empty), prepares to spear the beast with a weapon now missing from his right hand.

Behind the lion is another Persian—this one on foot, but recognized by the same clothing—who raises an ax above his head. Framing this central group to the left and right are two horsemen, Greeks or Macedonians, identified by their chitoniskoi and chlamydes.

The hunter at the left held a spear in his right hand, and he seems to have worn a band around his head (Fig. 25). The hunter at the right also prepares his spear, lifting his right arm and turning his back on the viewer. At the far left of the scene, an additional Persian, who prepares to shoot an arrow, and a Greek, nude except for a chlamys around his left arm, also look toward the lion hunt.

Figure 23. Hunting scene, Alexander Sarcophagus, ca. 310 B.c.

Istanbul, Archaeological Museum 370

AAAC FRANKS.indb 34

8/8/12 2:13 PM

the hunters

The horsemen are commonly identified as Alexander (at the left), Abdalonymos (the king of Sidon and presumed owner of the sarcophagus, whose horse is attacked by the lion), and, with less consistency, Hephaestion (to the right of the lion). A groove through the hair of the figure identified as Alexander indicates that he once wore something around his head. This is usually thought to have been a diadem, but, given other overlaps between this scene and the Vergina frieze, one might wonder whether it may have been a wreath instead. In any case, here, as in the Vergina frieze, the hunt from horseback seems to mark certain figures as distinct. The horsemen, in addition, are clothed, a detail that may set them further apart from their nude Macedonian companions, although the extent to which this should be considered an interpretive feature is complicated by the participation of Persians, who are always fully covered. Certainly, although some hunters are distinguished from the others, each of the lion hunters—on foot or horseback, armed with spear, bow, or ax—is poised to strike. So while we might assume that it will be the Alexander figure who succeeds, most of the hunters are in fact in a position to deal the deadly blow.

Even the relatively well-known post-Alexander context of this sarcophagus, to which one could attribute the highly Hellenic style as well as the presence of Macedonians, fails to fully clarify the complexity of this monument’s relationship to the other sarcophagi discussed above. While some features are easy to identify as “Greek-Macedonian” (for instance, the hunters in chitoniskoi) or “Persian” (the figure of Abdalonymos and, we might posit, the setting of the hunt), others are more difficult to tease apart. The lion, for instance, may be appropriate prey for Eastern royals, but the hunt in a group, rather than that of a solitary royal figure, surely changes the implications of the hunt both for those included in the scene and for the deceased within the sarcophagus. In any case, these monuments certainly attest to the resonance of the hunt theme in a royal funerary context, where it most often appears alongside battles, abductions, and banquets.29 As in the context of the living, such imagery seems to evoke (masculine) action, dominance, and control—an “ideology of mastery” that reinforces both adversarial and filial social relationships, and that is equally consonant with the royal and heroic worlds.30

AAAC FRANKS.indb 35

• 35

Figure 24 (left). Detail of lion hunt, Alexander Sarcophagus, ca.

310 B.c. Istanbul, Archaeological Museum 370 Figure 25 (right). Detail of mounted lion hunter, Alexander Sarcophagus, ca. 310 B.c. Istanbul, Archaeological Museum 370

8/8/12 2:13 PM

36 •

chapter one

The Lion Hunt in Greece and Macedonia The Alexander Sarcophagus has frequently been cited in discussions of the Vergina frieze, both because of the possibility that Alexander is included in both scenes and because both feature the lion as prey. After all, the lion hunt is unusual even in the other satrapal monuments described above. In Greece, too, the lion hunt was neither commonly practiced nor frequently depicted during the Classical period. But it does take on a new prominence in the Early Hellenistic period, in both the public display and the royal activities of the Hellenistic kings (Plin. HN 35.138; Polyb. 22.3.9; Ath. 5.102b–c; Plut.

Demetr. 50.6).31 This new popularity was presumably inspired by Alexander’s exploits in the royal Achaemenid parks.32 According to Curtius (8.1.1–16), in one paradeisos filled with herds of wild animals and great forests, Alexander was charged by a lion, which he killed with a single stroke. His lion hunts are also memorialized in the arts (Plin. HN 34.66). The Macedonian general Krateros famously dedicated at Delphi a bronze statue group that showed Alexander and his dogs engaged with a lion, as Krateros rushed to offer his assistance (Plut. Vit. Alex. 40.4).33 It has been suggested that this same hunt is also the subject of both a relief from Messene, in which two men—one on horseback, approaching from the left, and the second on foot at the right—converge on a lion, and, more controversially, a mosaic from the affluent House of Dionysos, near the agora at the Macedonian capital of Pella (discussed in Chapter 2; see Fig. 46).34 The mosaic features a lion flanked by two young men, each raising a weapon, a sword or spear, to attack the beast. There is little evidence to definitively connect this scene to a particular episode during the lifetime of Alexander, either the hunt involving Krateros or another, but the Pella mosaic does hint at the general popularity of the lion hunt as a theme current among the Macedonian elite in the late 4th century.35 Providing further support for the appeal of the lion hunt as an iconographic theme during this period, as well as a close parallel for the theme and for aspects of the composition of the Tomb II hunt, is a mosaic from House B at Palermo (Figs. 26, 27).36 The central portion of the mosaic is now missing, making certain details difficult to interpret, but the subject of the image is clear: four men, with at least two dogs, participate in the hunt of a boar and a lion. In the left half of the panel, the lion attacks a man, who has fallen and lies—helpless, presumably—on the ground. Only the man’s foot survives, but it is unshod, suggesting that he may have been fully nude. He will be saved, it seems, by a hunter on horseback, who prepares to spear the beast from above. This figure wears a short-sleeved chiton and a purple chlamys. In the right half of the panel is the boar hunt.

One of the hunting dogs, viewed from behind, crouches, confronting the boar; the second hunting dog has already been killed, and it lies, its legs askew, in the foreground to the right. The head, chest, and front legs of the boar are preserved, and its eyes are locked on the live dog. From behind, a second mounted hunter approaches, his spear raised and ready to attack the boar. He wears a short chiton and a chlamys. At the right edge of the image a figure strides away, fleeing the action of the scene. He holds a bow in his left hand and raises his right hand in front of him; his quiver is slung over his shoulder. Although he is beardless, his clothing identifies this figure as a Persian: he wears trousers and long sleeves, as well as the soft kidaris on his head. The hunts take place within a natural setting, marked by large trees on the left and in the center. In the upper right corner is a third tree and some shapes that are cut off by the gray background. William Wootton suggests that

AAAC FRANKS.indb 36

8/8/12 2:13 PM

the hunters

• 37

Figure 26. State drawing of hunt mosaic, Piazza della Vittoria, Palermo, Sicily, by William Wootton (2002, p. 266, fig. 2)

Figure 27. Reconstruction of hunt mosaic, Piazza della Vittoria, Palermo, Sicily, by William Wootton (2002, p. 267, fig. 5)

AAAC FRANKS.indb 37

8/8/12 2:13 PM

38 •

chapter one this tree is part of a landscape seen through a break in the hills that provide the backdrop for the hunt, and that situate it in a kind of valley.37 Soon after the mosaic’s publication, Heinrich Fuhrmann proposed that the mosaic refers to the episode in which Krateros rescued Alexander from a lion attack (Plut. Vit. Alex.

40.4).38 But, as Wootton has argued, the Krateros monument at Delphi, which represented the moment of Krateros’s intervention, showed Alexander engaged in a struggle with the lion, not overwhelmed by it. Further, as he points out, it seems unlikely that Alexander would be shown nude and in such a vulnerable position.39 Wootton suggests that, instead, it is Alexander on horseback, poised to rescue one of his companions from the lion’s attack. Indeed, this figure’s features—including a youthful, clean-shaven face, large eyes, and lionlike hair—are typical of those usually associated with Alexander’s portraiture.40 Although the mosaic itself dates to the late 2nd or early 1st century B.c., there is good reason to believe that it is based on an Early Hellenistic Macedonian painting, probably dating to shortly after Alexander’s death.41 The theme of the mounted hunter rescuing a nude companion from a lion attack is paralleled in other images, suggesting that they may derive from a common source.42 Other elements of the scene bear general similarities, even if they are not identical, to some in the Tomb II frieze—in particular, the pursuit of the boar and lion as prey, the hunters on rearing horses with spears raised, the clothing of the horsemen, the mountainous landscape, and even the wounded hunting dog. Such correspondences seem to situate these two hunts within a single iconographic tradition. The presence of a Persian among Macedonian figures in the Palermo mosaic further indicates an Early Hellenistic source. After all, the visual theme of hunts of Greeks or Macedonians and Persians together, along with that of the lion hunt, seems to have gained popularity in the period immediately following Alexander’s conquests. The mosaic might be positioned within this trend—even if its Persian, who leaves the mounted Macedonians to battle the boar and lion without assistance, departs from the spirit of cooperation common to the group hunt.

The inclusion of a Persian, whose identity is rendered unambiguously, is a particular point in which the Palermo mosaic contrasts with the Tomb II painting, and it is a useful one for this investigation precisely because the two images seem to be closely related.

Like the Persian hunters of the Alexander Sarcophagus, this figure explicitly locates the Palermo hunt in an Eastern setting. This underscores the fact that the artist at Vergina also had recourse to such visual cues, and that, if the setting of the Tomb II hunt was to be Persian, the Eastern locale would have been made clear.43 There is, however, no Persian presence in the frieze, and the conclusion that follows must be that the Vergina hunt takes place closer to home.

This is an essential point because the lion in the Vergina frieze has been seen as serving a role similar to that of the Persian in the Palermo mosaic. It has been considered both a chronological and a geographical marker: chronological, in that its appearance on Tomb II has been attributed to the influence either of Alexander’s hunts in Persia or of funerary iconography encountered by Alexander’s men in Asia Minor; geographical, in that lions are more commonly associated with the Persian landscape than with that of Greece or Macedonia.44 Wild lions do seem to have been rare in Greece, but they are not unheard of. When they do appear, it is in the mountainous regions of northern Greece, in the territory of

AAAC FRANKS.indb 38

8/8/12 2:13 PM

the hunters

• 39

Macedonia and the surrounding region.45 Herodotos describes the boundaries of lions’ territory as, in the east, the river Nestos (which flows through Abdera in Thrace, east of the Chalkidike), and, in the west, the Achelöos River in Akarnania (located in westcentral Greece on the Ionian Sea). No lions, the historian says, are found “to the east of the Nestos anywhere in the nearer part of Europe, [or] to the west of the Achelöos in the rest of the mainland” (7.126), which situates the lion’s habitat precisely in the region of Macedonia, between the Nestos and the Achelöos.46 This is confirmed in an anecdote included just prior to this passage, in which lions attacked the camels in Xerxes’ train when he passed through this very area on his way to Therma (7.125).

Other sources, too, support Herodotos’s general understanding of lions’ habitats. Xenophon says that they live in the area of Mount Pangeon, to the west of the Nestos and to the northeast of the city of Amphipolis (Cyn. 11.1). Aristotle, who lived in Macedonia, also locates lions in the region between the Achelöos and Nestos rivers (De an. 597b7 and 606b15]). Pausanias says that “the mountainous part of Thrace, on this side of the river Nes­­tus, which runs through the land of Abdera, breeds among other wild beasts, lion. . . .

These lions often roam right into the land around Mount Olympus” (6.5.5).47 In fact, in this passage, Pausanias mentions the Olympic victor Poulydamas of Skotussa, who killed one of these lions on Mount Olympos in the late 5th century. This exploit, accomplished without the help of weapons, led the athlete to imagine himself as an equal of Herakles, the Greek lion slayer par excellence (Paus. 6.5.5). A statue of this Poulydamas, by Lysippos, was erected at Olympia, a place appropriate for the commemoration of a lion hunter connected with the Olympic Games. The extant statue base features relief friezes of his feats, including his wrestling match with the lion (Paus. 6.5.7).48 All of these sources suggest that lions were found in the northern parts of Greece, in Macedonia and nearby Thrace, and that they are especially associated with the mountains in that region. The story of Pouly­damas and the representation of his deed demonstrate, further, that struggles against lions were neither unheard of nor unimagined prior to the Hellenistic period.

But whether lions existed in 4th-century Macedonia is actually less relevant for our purposes than whether firsthand encounters with lions were essential for the representation of a lion hunt. Wherever it was that lions roamed in the wild, artists’ lack of firsthand knowledge of these beasts never prevented them from representing Herakles’ battle with the Nemean Lion. Similarly, personal experience with centaurs and giants was never a requisite for the depiction of scenes in which these creatures battle Greeks and gods. An artist need not have witnessed one of Alexander’s Persian hunts in order to imagine what a lion hunt would have entailed, or that such an event existed. But it is true that encounters with lions were rare, and, thus, in those few instances in which they are recorded in literature or as a visual theme, they are particularly meaningful, and are employed to commemorate specific kinds of men. When the lion does appear as prey, it is often linked to conceptions of the Hellenic landscape in the past, as it once existed. This connection to the past is evident, for instance, in the comparison that emerges between Poulydamas’s deeds and those of Herakles. Another, and particularly relevant, example, is a story in which Karanos, the ancient founder of the Macedonian kingdom and its first king, erected a trophy to celebrate his victory over neighboring Kisseus. Although he did not do battle with a lion, one descended from Mount Olympos, and it toppled and crushed the monument as a sign that Macedonian kings should not erect trophies for military victories (Paus. 9.40.8–9).

AAAC FRANKS.indb 39

8/8/12 2:13 PM

40 •

chapter one I will return to the lion’s place as part of the landscape of the Hellenic past in the following chapters, but if we wish to locate a persuasive visual precedent for the lion hunt at Vergina, we need look no further than Macedonia. The silver staters of the Macedonian king Amyntas III (r. ca. 394/3, 392–370/69; frequently referred to simply as “Amyntas” in my discussion) are significant for our study, as they attest to the appearance of the lion hunt from horseback as an iconographic theme associated with Macedonian royalty prior to the reign of Alexander, and even of Philip (Fig. 28).49 On its obverse, the type features a horseman, an omnipresent motif in the kingdom’s coinage throughout the 5th century, as we will see below. Galloping to the right, the rider wears a short tunic, a chlamys, which flutters behind him, and a wide-brimmed hat. In his right hand he holds a spear, directed at a downward angle. On the coin’s reverse, a lion gnaws a broken spear shaft under the legend AMYNTA. These two sides of the coin in fact are two parts of a single narrative, read from obverse to reverse in a “wraparound” composition.50 The horseman on the obverse is not just any rider, but a hunter, who prepares to strike his prey, the lion on the reverse, while it is momentarily distracted by the spent spear from the hunter’s first attempt.

This kind of wraparound composition that produces a single scene is unusual on coinage, but confirmation for this reading is found in the Vergina frieze, which offers a visual parallel for the role of the stater’s lion. In the painted scene, the bear at the far right is similarly preoccupied with a broken spear, allowing the hunter below a clear shot. Located in a context in which the animal’s role as hunter’s prey is without doubt, the Vergina bear reinforces the identification of the lion on Amyntas’s stater as the horseman’s target, and of the entire coin as a single hunting scene that reads from front to back.

Figure 28. Horseman (left) and lion (right), silver stater of Amyntas III, 393/2–370/69 B.c.

New York, American Numismatic Society 1944.100.12168

Scholars have occasionally cited these staters in discussions of the frieze, but the coins’ significance as an iconographic precedent to the Vergina hunt has not been fully appreciated.51 Rare though lion hunts are in the wider Hellenic tradition, these coins attest to their presence as a visual theme in Macedonia long before the hunts of Alexander in the East.52 The staters are, therefore, particularly significant for our discussion of the Tomb II painting in two ways. First, the lion hunt on Amyntas’s staters prevents the use of the lion hunt in the Vergina frieze as a means of dating Tomb II, since such a dating requires the use of Alexander’s conquests as a terminus post quem for the introduction of this theme into the Hellenic or, more specifically, the royal Macedonian artistic tradition. Second, Amyntas’s staters specifically link the imagery of the lion hunt to the Macedonian king, the authority that issued the coins. Not only, therefore, was the lion hunt known in the kingdom, but it was also an iconographic theme associated with, and employed by, Macedonian royalty from at least the first half of the 4th century.53

AAAC FRANKS.indb 40

8/8/12 2:13 PM

the hunters

• 41

Certainly, it is still a possibility, if not a likelihood, that the royal symbolism of the lion hunt was inspired by its role in the East.54 But this need not have happened after Alexander’s conquests there. Modern studies and historical sources alike attest to Macedonia’s contact with the Persian satrapal courts in the Classical period, and the staters provide unequivocal evidence that if such contact influenced Macedonian royal iconography, it did so prior even to the reign of Philip II.55 Indeed, given the existence of this tradition within Macedonia, one might even begin to wonder whether Alexander’s enthusiasm for hunting lions in Persia had more to do with the acting out of a Macedonian idea of royal behavior than with his purported adoption of Persian customs.

The Macedonian Horseman Like the pursuit of the lion, the Vergina protagonists’ hunt from horseback has also, at times, been identified as a “Persianizing” feature.56 This notion seems to find some support, initially, in the relatively infrequent appearance of mounted hunters in Greek redfigure vase painting and, apparently, in the practice of the hunt in the 4th-century Greek world.57 In his treatise on hunting, for instance, Xenophon never indicates that a horse is necessary for the activity, although elsewhere he does recommend the hunt as a suitable event for the practice of horsemanship (Eq. 8.10). In contrast, Greek accounts of royal Persian hunts describe the Great King as mounted. Herodotos says that Darius injured himself when dismounting after a hunt (3.129), and Xenophon’s Cyrus hunts from horseback (Cyr. 1.4.14).

As for Macedonian royalty, one indication of the logistics of royal hunting practices before Alexander’s time is Arrian’s statement that when Philip went out on the hunt, he was mounted in the “Persian manner” (Anab. 4.13.1). At first glance, this comment seems to reinforce a connection between, specifically, the royal Macedonian hunt from horseback and royal Persian customs. But it is worth noting that Arrian does not refer to Philip’s explicit imitation of the Persian king, and his description may instead supply a simple point of contrast between Philip’s preferred way of hunting and common Greek practices of the time. In any case, that Arrian considers Philip’s hunt as “Persian” does not mean that Philip did as well, nor does it mean that Philip was the first or only Macedonian king to hunt in that manner. Alexander actually seems to have preferred to hunt dangerous game on foot, a method that may have particularly appealed to him because the Hellenic heroes confronted their game in this way. As mentioned above, Krateros memorialized in a statue group at Delphi his rescue of Alexander from a lion during one of the king’s hunts in Persia. In his description of this statue, Plutarch does not mention horses, and he describes the figure of Alexander as “grappling” with the beast (Vit. Alex. 40.4). Eventually, Curtius says, Alexander’s men had to insist that he hunt from horseback rather than on foot because of his propensity for placing himself in danger (Curt. 8.1.19), offering a motivation for Alexander’s hunt from horseback that has nothing to do with a symbolic “Persianizing” of the king’s practices.

These sources about the practice of the Macedonian royal hunt are useful because they suggest that the practice of hunting from horseback—whatever its origin—was not necessarily considered by Macedonians of the 4th century as an appropriation of Persian (Achaemenid or satrapal) royal ideology on the part of Macedonian kings. Of course, the attempt to seek out direct parallels between Macedonian kings’ preferred ways of hunting

AAAC FRANKS.indb 41

8/8/12 2:13 PM

42 •

chapter one

Figure 29. Crowned figure with weapons, gold daric, 5th century B.c. New York, American Numismatic Society 1944.100.73489

and the iconography employed by this Macedonian royalty is a problematic venture. Practice and the visual crafting of the public royal self-image (the arena to which the Vergina frieze belongs) do not always necessarily align, after all. In this case, however, the literary evidence accords with that offered by the staters of Amyntas, which reflect an iconography employed as part of this self-image. These coins, which offer a stunning example of the lion hunt as a visual theme, also provide a precedent for the hunt from horseback. They suggest that the mounted hunters of the Vergina frieze do not reflect a newly imported Persian practice or an appeal to foreign royal ideology, but, instead, a tradition with an existing history and meaning in the Macedonian kingdom.58 The concept of a mounted royal hunter may have originated in the East, where it has an ancient and distinguished past both in royal practice and in court art, but if it came from the East, it came, like the lion hunt, long before Alexander’s hunts in Persian parks.

Indeed, while the staters of Amyntas are innovative in the pairing of a horseman and lion in a hunting scene, both elements have a long history in the coinage of other Macedonian kings. Coinage is, in fact, a useful medium for the study of Macedonia. Since the kingdom’s regal coinage includes the name of the king under whom it was issued, numismatic evidence is datable with a precision that is difficult to achieve with other kinds of material, and thus it allows for the reconstruction of relative relationships between the iconographies used by successive kings. As we have already seen in the case of Amyntas, coinage is additionally significant for our purposes because it is a public medium, connected to the figure of the king and his authority through the physical inscription of his name. In the Archaic and Classical periods, it was the state—whether under a monarch or as a democracy—that had the resources to mint coins. As a result, the iconography that defined coin types “exclusively symbolized the state,” functioning not only as the guarantee of a given coin’s value, but also, potentially, as a means of political self-definition.59 For instance, the Athenian tetradrachm type—the “owl,” which features, over the course of centuries, a helmeted head of Athena on the obverse and her owl on the reverse—came to be intimately linked to its issuing body, identified by the inscription ΑΘΕ(ΝΑΙΩΝ) on the coin.60 The political potential of this close relationship between coin types and the state was not lost on the Persian king Darius I (r. 521–486), who introduced on his coinage (the daric, as it is called in Classical sources) an image of the king holding a bow and either arrows (Type I), a spear (Type III; Fig. 29), or a dagger (Type IV). This royal archer is generally accepted as a representation of both Darius himself as the head of state and the ideal of Achaemenid kingship, in which the king serves as the empire’s protector, assuring his subjects’ security and prosperity.61 In both of these cases, that of the daric and that of the owl, the coin type serves, or over time comes to serve, as an emblem of the political authority that issued the coin. In a similar way, we might consider that the iconography of the regal coin types in Macedonia also had political resonance connected to the projected image of the state, embodied by the king. As such, the kingdom’s coinage will be a vital contribution to our study of the Vergina frieze as a monument that reflects royal interests.

The most consistent type in the kingdom’s coinage involves horses and a horseman.

We have seen him already on the obverse of the Amyntas staters, and we will return to this figure again below. But other Macedonian regal types, too, seem to take on an emblematic role connected to the expression of royal power or to the royal dynasty’s legitimacy, and they provide a useful background, therefore, for thinking about the function of the horse-

AAAC FRANKS.indb 42

8/8/12 2:13 PM

the hunters

• 43

man in this visual context.62 Some 5th-century Macedonian coins include a goat—in fact, this is one of the kingdom’s earliest coin types, appearing first under Alexander I (r. ca.

498–454) (Fig. 30) and then later in the century on the coins of Archelaos (r. 413–399).63 In this context, as in other instances in which the goat has appeared in Macedonian material, scholars have generally agreed that it serves as a reference to the kingdom’s capital, Aigai, whose name is connected etymologically with the Greek work for “goat.”64 This particular image might allude, specifically, to the Argead conquering of the territory of the Bisaltai tribe (Strabo 7, fr. 11), since goats had previously appeared on that tribe’s coinage.65 Or it might imply a broader national or civic (as opposed to royal) identity, since the Macedonian land was a place known for abundant flocks. But, although the land was wealthy and productive prior to Argead presence there, the foundation of the city of Aigai was attributed to the (newly arrived, according to the mythology) members of that dynasty (Diod. Sic. 7.16). The goat, therefore, might function on multiple levels: as an allusion to the kingdom’s expansion and abundance, as a symbol of the kingdom’s capital city, and, through this capital, as a reminder of the centrality of the Argead dynasty’s role in the foundation of the kingdom and the realization of its prosperous potential.

The origins of the dynasty itself are referenced in other types, most overtly in those featuring Herakles, the progenitor of the Argead line. The hero appears on coins in the reign of Archelaos at the end of the 5th century, and is a constant presence in the 4th century; sometimes he is beardless and sometimes bearded, but the inclusion of his lion hood leaves no doubt as to his identity.66 The head of Zeus on Philip II’s tetradrachms and the eagle that appears on types of Archelaos and Amyntas III might be considered an additional reference to the ultimate origins of the Argead dynasty.67 Zeus, of course, has other connections to Macedonia, since Olympos is located there, and, in Philip’s case, the head may refer more immediately to the king’s successful participation in the Olympic Games of 356. But given the presence of Herakles on the kingdom’s 4th-century coinage, and the eagle’s later appearance grasping a thunderbolt on the reverse of Alexander’s drachms, it is tempting to see in Zeus and in the earlier eagles a specific reference to Argead genealogy.68 This eagle is one of a series of wild beasts to appear on the Classical regal types, which also include lions, boars, and wolves.69 I will discuss the lion in more detail below, particularly as it is juxtaposed with the horseman, but in general, it is difficult to attach a specific symbolism—comparable to that of the goat, for instance—to these animals. While their meaning is not definitive, however, they might be considered as symbols of royal power, not unlike the lion and bull that appear on Kroesids, the coins of the Lydian king Kroesos (r. ca. 560–547). More specifically, they might represent forces harnessed by the king through activities like the hunt—as in the Neo-Assyrian reliefs.70 Figure 30. Horseman (left) and goat protome in incuse (right), silver tetradrachm of Alexander I, ca. 498–454 B.c. New York, American Numismatic Society 1967.152.191

AAAC FRANKS.indb 43

8/8/12 2:13 PM

44 •

chapter one

Figure 31. Man standing beside a bridled horse (left) and incuse (right), silver drachm of the Thracian Bisaltai, ca. 500 B.c. London, British Museum 1839.0426.1

Figure 32. Horseman (left) and incuse (right), silver obol of the Thracian Bisaltai, ca. 500 B.c.

London, British Museum G2666

Figure 33. Man standing beside a bridled horse (left) and incuse (right), silver drachm of Alexander I, ca. 498–454 B.c. London, British Museum 1966.1201.967

Figure 34. Horseman (left) and lion protome in incuse (right), silver tetrobol of Perdikkas II, ca.

454–413 B.c. New York, American Numismatic Society 1963.268.47

Apart from these types, as mentioned above, a theme that consistently appears in Mace­donia’s regal coinage is that of horsemanship, and it does appear to be intimately related to the royal image. The first Macedonian king to issue coins inscribed with his name was Alexander I. Apparently modeled on the tribal coinage of the Thracian Bisaltai (Figs. 31, 32), the obverse of Alexander’s coins features a horse, alone or with a figure (Fig. 33).71 When the figure is included, he either stands alongside the horse (on the “far” side, so that the horse’s body blocks much of his from view) or he is mounted. In either case, he holds two spears and wears a tunic and chlamys. He also wears the petasos, a traveling hat, secured by strings that extend down his back.72 A similar type continues under Alexander’s successor, Perdikkas II (r. ca. 454–413) (Fig. 34).73 On Perdikkas’s tetrobols,

AAAC FRANKS.indb 44

8/8/12 2:13 PM

the hunters

• 45

the figure is dressed in the same manner, and he still holds two spears; he is consistently mounted now, although the horse appears on some denominations alone, without a rider.

The horse may stand, as in Alexander’s types, with one front foot raised, or, in a major development of the type under Perdikkas, it may gallop or prance to the right, with both front legs lifted off the groundline. After Perdikkas, the mounted figure—this “Macedonian horseman”—continues on the obverse of the didrachms of Archelaos, and then, after a short hiatus, on the now well-known staters of Amyntas III, where he is a hunter.74 The influence of the earlier horseman on Amyntas’s hunter is apparent: he wears a chlamys, a petasos, and a short chiton or tunic, as does the 5th-century horseman. Also like his predecessors, Amyntas’s horseman originally held two spears, the first now in the jaws of the lion, and the second raised in the hunter’s right hand. Such an appeal to the visual tradition of the horseman is not, it would seem, accidental, and it both reveals the significance of coinage as a medium for political messages, and reflects Amyntas’s particular savvy for employing it in his interests as king. Amyntas’s reign was preceded by a particularly tumultuous period in the Macedonian court. By reintroducing an image so well known from the 5th-century tradition, Amyntas symbolically aligned himself with earlier rulers, whose reigns were characterized by political stability.75 This calculated use of imagery as an expression of royal authority and legitimacy is, in fact, equally demonstrated in other coin types from Amyntas’s reign.76 On the obverse of other silver staters, Amyntas included a bearded bust of Herakles (Fig. 35); Herakles also appears—beardless—on the king’s small bronze issues (Fig. 36).77 This iconographic choice declared Amyntas’s status as a legitimate Argead king, not only by linking him to the heroic ancestor of the Argead dynasty, but also by positioning him as the heir to a stable political past (and as the harbinger of a similar future), since the hero had previously appeared on the coins of Archelaos.78 The reintroduction of the Herakles type also set Amyntas dramatically apart from others who vied for the kingship in the early decades of the 4th century. In his use both of Herakles and of the horseman, then, Amyntas promoted a connection, visually and ideologically, to the security and prosperity enjoyed under previous Argead kings.79 Figure 35. Head of Herakles (left) and horse in incuse (right), silver stater of Amyntas III, ca.

393/2–370/69 B.c. New York, American Numismatic Society 1944.100.12165

Figure 36. Head of Herakles (left) and eagle grasping serpent (right), copper alloy coin of Amyntas III, 393/2–370/69 B.c. London, British Museum 1844.1008.114

AAAC FRANKS.indb 45

8/8/12 2:13 PM

46 •

chapter one Political motivations may have also played a part in the coin types of Philip II, who, like Amyntas, emerged as king after a period of instability and a contest for the Macedonian throne. The hunter is now nowhere to be found, but Philip’s coin types do maintain the larger theme of the horseman. The silver tetradrachms issued during Philip’s lifetime feature on their obverse a wreathed, bearded head of Zeus, and the earlier reverse type is a bearded horseman (Fig. 37).80 In the manner of the horseman that appears on the coins of 5th-century kings, he wears a tunic, a chlamys, and a wide-brimmed hat. He does not carry spears, but instead raises his right hand forward in a kind of salute.81 This gesture is new in Macedonia, and its origin and meaning are unclear. The closest chronological parallel, and, perhaps, an inspiration for the raised hand, may be found on bronze coins issued by the Thracian Kotys I, who ruled the Odrysian kingdom in the first half of the 4th century, just before Philip came to power (Fig. 38).82 But the type—a mounted figure with hand raised forward in salute—has a long and suggestive life in later sculptural and numismatic portraits of generals and emperors in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. In his famous equestrian portrait in the Capitoline Museum, Marcus Aurelius raises his right hand, though it is positioned slightly lower. Closer to Macedonia and to the 4th century is a monumental gilded bronze statue of a mounted figure from the Athenian Agora (identified as Demetrios Poliorketes) that has been reconstructed in a similar pose.83 One might wonder whether the new gesture of Philip’s horseman on coinage might make use of iconography popular in other media—perhaps, even, in a sculptural dedication made during Philip’s reign. In any case, Philip’s rider still takes part in the tradition of the horseman—a choice that, like Amyntas’s before him, may have been a strategic one, designed, at least in part, to reinforce his legitimacy in the face of political threats.84

Figure 37. Head of Zeus (left) and bearded horseman with raised hand (right), silver tetradrachm of Philip II, ca. 359–356 B.c.

New York, American Numismatic Society 1944.100.12304

Figure 38. Horseman (left) and kotyle in incuse (right), bronze coin of Kotys I, ca. 382–358 B.c. London, British Museum 1938.1007.241

At some point during Philip’s reign, a second reverse type is introduced, and a nude, youthful jockey on horseback replaces the bearded horseman (Fig. 39).85 The youth, shown holding a palm, the ends of a taenia fluttering behind his head, is widely accepted

AAAC FRANKS.indb 46

8/8/12 2:14 PM

the hunters

• 47

as a reference to Philip’s horse and jockey that won the Olympic horse race in 356.86 Plutarch records Philip’s receipt of the news of his Olympic victory, and the fortuitous events with which it kept company: the king received three messages at once, announcing his general Parmenion’s victory over the Illyrians, his horse’s victory at the Olympic Games, and Alexander’s birth (Vit. Alex. 3.4–5). It is worth noting that this passage combines athletic victory with military triumph, underscoring Philip’s accomplishments in both of these spheres; it also combines these successes with the birth of an heir, who would equal, and ultimately surpass, his father’s deeds. The Olympic horse race was, in any case, a significant event for Philip—not simply because of the victory itself, but perhaps even more so because his participation in these Panhellenic games demonstrated unequivocally his status as a Greek.87 The king’s celebration of this new acknowledgment of his membership in the Hellenic community is, in fact, twice reinforced on the tetradrachm types: once in the inclusion of the jockey as a reference to the specific victory, and once in the head of Olympian Zeus, in whose games the victory was achieved.

Figure 39. Head of Zeus (left) and jockey on horseback (right), silver tetradrachm of Philip II, ca.

359–336 B.c. New York, American Numismatic Society 1964.42.22

Philip’s gold staters share their larger compositional structure with the tetradrachms; they include a Greek god on the obverse and the apparent commemoration of an athletic victory on the reverse (Fig. 40).88 Rather than the head of Zeus, the gold staters feature the head of a beardless youth. On the earliest dies he is crowned with a laurel wreath, and he has been recognized, therefore, as Apollo.89 On the reverse of the staters is a biga, a two-horse chariot, with driver. Comparison with the reverse of Philip’s tetradrachms, which tout his victorious Olympic racehorse, led Georges Le Rider to interpret the chariot as commemorating a second Olympic victory, although none is recorded in the literary sources.90 Whatever the specifics of the chariot race, Philip chose to memorialize hippic victories, a subject that simultaneously commemorated his personal achievements and positioned his coins in line with the long-standing tradition of the horseman in regal Macedonian types.

Figure 40. Head of Apollo (left) and charioteer in biga (right), gold stater of Philip II, ca. 359–336 B.c.

New York, American Numismatic Society 1963.268.25

AAAC FRANKS.indb 47

8/8/12 2:14 PM

48 •

chapter one To be clear, the horsemen that appear on Macedonian regal coinage in the 5th and 4th centuries do not represent an unchanging type, but, instead, a single theme to which different types adhere. The prominence and longevity of this visual theme on the kingdom’s coinage in fact reflects what seems to be a larger symbolic significance of horsemanship for its royalty, at least in the Classical period. Philip’s own connection to horses is, after all, underscored in his very name: Φίλιππος means, literally, “fond of horses.”

More generally, one of the primary roles of the Macedonian king was as the leader of the famous and elite “Companion Cavalry,” made up of the kingdom’s nobility.91 Archaeological material, and particularly the tombs at Vergina, provides additional evidence that horses and horsemanship were an integral part of the image of royalty in the kingdom.

A mounted figure notably similar to the horseman on Amyntas’s staters is repeated four times on the gilded silver pectoral from the antechamber of Tomb II (Fig. 14).92 He is a hunter, and he raises his spear above his prey: a small, horned quadruped, depicted below the horse. The horseman’s appearance on this luxury object, included within the royal tomb, underscores his position as an emblem closely associated with the kingdom’s elite.93 We might consider alongside this iconographic evidence the harness and bones of horses found in the remains of the pyre associated with Tomb II, burned, presumably, along with the deceased—a further indication that these animals were integral to this (royal) individual’s identity and to the public display that accompanied his commemoration.94 In addition, around the interior of Vergina’s Tomb III is a painted frieze depicting a chariot race, the same kind of equestrian event commemorated on the reverse of Philip’s coins.

While Alexander may have preferred to hunt on foot, he was not unskilled in horsemanship, and we might consider, in this context, his dramatic taming of his horse, Boukephalas (Plut. Vit. Alex. 6). Brought from Thessaly to Philip’s court, the horse was thought to be uncontrollable, rearing whenever the grooms approached him. Young Alexander, given the chance to try to subdue the beast, turned Boukephalas toward the sun, having noticed that the horse was frightened of his shadow. Having calmed the horse, the prince rode him easily, and Boukephalas was, from that point forward, a constant companion during Alexander’s campaigns. Certainly, because Alexander’s reign—and, indeed, his personality—was so unique, it is always dangerous to use anecdotes about him to talk more broadly about Macedonian traditions. Still, the significance of this taming might be better understood in light of the evidence for the value of horsemanship as a prominent and likely symbolic part of the royal culture of Macedonia. The story of Boukephalas may anticipate Alexander’s potential to fulfill an ideal of the noble Macedonian male, or, more specifically, the king, who, as we will see, is a master of these animals and of the skills required to handle them.95

The Northern Aegean Horseman The distinguished role of horsemanship in Macedon, a rugged area at the northern edge of the Hellenic world, should not come as a surprise. The Thracians, whose kingdoms neighbored Macedon to the north and east, in the area of modern Bulgaria, were also famous horsemen. Even in Greek mythology, one of Herakles’ labors was to collect the flesh-eating mares of Diomedes, king of the Thracian Bistones (Apollod. Bibl. 2.5.8), and Rhesos of Thrace, a Trojan ally, possessed the finest and swiftest horses seen at Troy

AAAC FRANKS.indb 48

8/8/12 2:14 PM

the hunters

• 49

(Hom. Il. 10.435–437). According to Xenophon, horse races were an integral part of Thracian funeral games in the historical period, as they were in Homer’s Greece (Hell. 3.2.5), and the Thracian cavalry was reputed to be talented and substantial: Seuthes III’s cavalry outnumbered Lysimachos’s four to one (Diod. Sic. 18.14.2).96 As at Vergina, material remains from Thracian burials at multiple sites confirm that the horse had as prominent a place in funerary ritual as it did in the lives of the kingdom’s elite. Sets of horse gear and harness appliqués are often among the funerary goods of Thracian warrior burials.97 In some tumuli, primarily dating to the 4th and 3rd centuries B.c., the animals themselves were buried along with their masters.98 The inclusion of horses and horse equipment in the pyre associated with Tomb II at Vergina may have been inspired, in part, by similar practices in Thrace or in the northern Aegean more broadly.

Certainly, political interaction between the Macedonian and Thracian royal courts offered ample opportunities for cultural exchange, as well as for the reinforcement of similar traditions. Before the Hellenistic Macedonian occupation of Thracian territory, we hear of political marriages between the Odrysian prince Seuthes and Stratonike, the sister of Perdikkas II of Macedon, in the 430s (Thuc. 2.101.6), and Philip II married Meda, a Getan princess, at the conclusion of his alliance with the king Kothelas (Satyros ap. Ath. 13.557b–e). In addition, the Thracians were part of an invasion of Macedon in 429 (Thuc.

2.98–100), and the Odrysians may even have been involved in securing the reign of Amyntas III in Macedon in the 380s.99 These historical moments of high-profile political contact aside, various Thracian tribes and kingdoms coexisted with the Macedonians and vied for power and land throughout the Archaic and Classical periods. It seems only natural, in fact, that the northern Aegean would have been a place of constant cultural contact and exchange. The very political structure of the Classical Thracian kingdoms, which emerged out of tribal dynasties and were governed by a hereditary king surrounded by a warrior elite, is similar to the structure that developed in Macedon.100 The iconographic expression of political power in coin types also seems to offer several common threads, particularly evident in the coinage of the Thracian Odrysians. As in Macedon, horses and horsemanship are prominent on Thracian coins, and the horseman himself appears on more than one occasion. The silver drachmas of the Odrysian Sparadokos, for instance, feature a horse on their obverse; on their reverse is an eagle, wings spread, grasping a serpent (Fig. 41).101 Like the horse, the eagle is a shared iconographic theme in Thracian and Macedonian coin types. It is known from coins of a Chalkidic mint usually associated with Olynthos, but it also reappears later in coins of Amyntas III. Although the Macedonian eagle is in profile, it, like the Thracian and Chalkidic predecessors, grasps a serpent in its beak and talons.102 A lion protome, a Figure 41. Standing horse (left) and eagle grasping a serpent (right), silver triobol of Sparadokos, ca. 425 B.c. London, British Museum 1892.0611.1

AAAC FRANKS.indb 49

8/8/12 2:14 PM

50 •

chapter one type familiar from the coinage of the Macedonians Perdikkas II and Archelaos in the 5th century, is also included on bronze coins of the Odrysian Hebrizelmis (r. ca. 389–384).103 Further overlap between the Macedonian and Thracian cultures—particularly elite cultures—is discernible in the archaeological record. The distribution of jewelry and fibula types in the Archaic and Classical periods suggests, at the very least, active trade contacts between Greece, Macedonia, and the Balkans.104 Likewise, small sheet-gold appliqué plaques have a long tradition throughout the northern Aegean, and the gilded silver pectoral from the antechamber of Tomb II has significant parallels in Thracian finds.105 The use of similar vessels and the deposition of comparable assemblages in elite burials seem to reflect cultural similarities—beginning, perhaps, as early as the Bronze Age—not only in material types, but also in the customs of banqueting and drinking, and in the role of the banquet in funerary contexts.106 Perhaps unsurprisingly, burials provide further points of comparison between Thracian and Macedonian traditions. The inclusion of horses and horse accoutrements in elite tumuli is mentioned above, but suggestive similarities might also be found in the very monumentality of the tombs, their situation under tumuli, the elaboration of tomb architecture through sculpted architectural details, and the burial of abundant and expensive grave goods, which include not only horses and drinking equipment, but also armor and weaponry.107 The iconography associated with Thracian elite tombs also reflects concerns very similar to those that surface in Macedonian funerary contexts. Hellenic mythological themes on occasion take a central place in the decoration of the Thracian tombs, but visual themes seem, more often, to underscore the individual’s relationship to the military, his access to the luxury of the banquet, or his mastery of the hunt.108 It is true, of course, that these themes are also common elsewhere, in funerary monuments of Asia Minor, Phoenicia, and the Greek poleis. But considered alongside the other commonalities among elite burials, the use of parallel themes may, at the very least, indicate the appeal to similar models of masculinity as part of the self-image of the northern Aegean elite. Battle scenes, primarily one-on-one battles between men on foot and on horseback, are included in the antechamber of an Early Hellenistic tomb near Alexandrovo, in southeastern Bulgaria, and in the rear lunette of the Macedonian “Kinch Tomb.”109 Banquets with processions are featured on the famous Thracian Kazanlak dome, and on the facade frieze of a Macedonian tomb at Ayios Athanassios outside Thessaloniki.110 The hunt appears as well. A frieze band on the interior dome of the Thracian tomb near Alexandrovo features a painted hunting scene that is comparable to the Vergina frieze in its inclusion of a variety of prey, and the participation of hunters on foot and on horseback (Figs. 42–44).111 These men and their dogs pursue deer and boar. Both boar hunts include one horseman and one attendant on foot; a horseman with two attendants pursues one of the deer, and a lone horseman hunts the second deer (Fig. 43). Of those on foot, one (who bleeds from a wound on his left cheek) wears a tunic and uses a lagobolon, two wear the exomis, and one, wielding a double ax, is nude (Fig. 44).112 The horsemen are distinguished from these men not only by their mounted position, but also by their clothing.

Their leggings, long sleeves, and pointed shoes designate their status as noble cavalrymen, the recognition of which suggests that their mastery of horsemanship in the hunt extends to military contexts as well. This theme is underscored in the use of a cavalry sarissa by one of the horsemen, and is further elaborated in the battle scenes of the tomb’s antechamber.113

AAAC FRANKS.indb 50

8/8/12 2:14 PM

the hunters

• 51

Figure 42. Hunting scene, Thracian tomb at Alexandrovo, 4th century B.c.

Figure 43. Detail of stag hunt, Thracian tomb at Alexandrovo, 4th century B.c.

AAAC FRANKS.indb 51

Figure 44. Detail of boar hunt, Thracian tomb at Alexandrovo, 4th century B.c.

8/8/12 2:14 PM

52 •

chapter one While the circular composition of the frieze creates no clear hierarchy of space, the “central” hunter might be considered the figure on the white horse opposite the tomb’s entrance (Fig. 43).114 He is further differentiated as the only man to hunt unassisted and with the cavalry sarissa, details that may both highlight his performance in this context and contribute to the expression of his personal glory.115 While the overall theme of the hunt is similar to that of the Tomb II frieze, the solitary, unassisted achievement of this figure is something very different from what is portrayed at Vergina, where group participation is central, and it is visually emphasized through both the presence of multiple hunters and the composition. Even so, the Alexandrovo tomb is useful here because it brings us back to the horseman and the centrality of horsemanship, both in practice and in visual representation.

There is the suggestion, in the material discussed above, of broadly defined northern Aegean cultural traditions, in which both the Macedonian and Thracian kingdoms participated, even if variations existed. Horsemanship clearly served as a defining activity for the region’s elite. As in Macedonia, the importance of horsemanship, particularly for Thracian nobles, is reinforced in the area’s visual material. The Alexandrovo tomb is a monumental example, but valuable objects in precious materials from the 5th and 4th centuries suggest its pervasiveness as a visual theme. A set of harness appliqués from Letnitsa in the Lovech region combines scenes of horsemen engaging in hunt and battle on an object that may have represented the symbolic offering of a horse in a wealthy tomb.116 The horseman also appears in Thrace on belts, metal vessels, and relatively frequently on gold signet rings.117 Hippic imagery also appears on coinage. As mentioned above, Sparadokos (r. ca.

464–444 as a local prince, not as an Odrysian king) issued drachmas with a walking horse on the obverse (Fig. 41), and his diobols feature a horse protome.118 The protome seems to be related to a type common in the coinage of Maroneia, which adheres to the “ThracoMacedonian” standard in its earliest issues, and which also has parallels in coin types of Alexander I.119 Sparadokos may have also issued tetradrachms that feature a horseman with chlamys and two spears, similar to the rider ubiquitous on Alexander I’s and Perdikkas II’s coinage, although the authenticity of the tetradrachms has been questioned.120 The horseman does appear on other coins, those of Sroios and Skostokos—probably local princes, known only through their coinage—and, most notably, on the bronze coins of Kotys I (r. ca. 383–359 as Odrysian king).121 Kotys’s mounted figure, wearing a chlamys and galloping to the right, raises his hand in a kind of salute. The gesture is a remarkable (and, it seems likely, not coincidental) anticipation of the bearded horseman adopted for the reverse of Philip II’s silver tetradrachms, as mentioned above.

While the representation of the Thracian horseman varies in other media, on coinage he is noticeably similar in style and appearance to his counterpart on the Macedonian regal issues—Philip’s, of course, but also 5th-century precedents. Indeed, the Thracian image is consistent enough with the Macedonian regal type to suggest, tentatively, a relationship between the iconographies, and even, potentially, their political implications.

Other shared types, mentioned above, buttress this possibility. In any case, it is clear that horsemanship was a defining activity across these northern Aegean cultures, and it was particularly favored among the Macedonian and Thracian elite, who, after all, made up their kingdom’s cavalry. But when the horseman appears on coinage and elsewhere in the visual tradition, what does he represent? And how might this translate to the appearance of certain hunters as horsemen in the Vergina frieze?

AAAC FRANKS.indb 52

8/8/12 2:14 PM

the hunters

• 53

A Portrait of Kingship The prominent place of the horseman in regal coinage, which has the potential to reflect the authority and interests of the king, raises the questions of whom or what exactly he represents, and how exactly he reflects royal interests. This has proven a complex issue, and scholars remain undecided even as to what kind of figure he might be, particularly with regard to the 5th-century Macedonian horseman, who appears outside of any identifiable narrative context and, from our perspective, without clear attributes. He may be a warrior, and, given the importance of elite cavalry in the northern Aegean, an allusion to this military role would not be an unexpected part of the iconography on regal coinage.

But the figure is inappropriately dressed for war, and some have argued that he is better outfitted for the hunt, an activity that might also explain the appearance of a small dog, a Maltese, that runs below the horse in some versions of the Macedonian coins.122 That Amyntas’s later version of the horseman is so clearly a lion hunter seems to buttress this identification, particularly since the figure of the lion hunter is so carefully situated as a part of the existing iconographic tradition of the Macedonian horseman.123 An identification of the 5th-century horseman as a hunter, however, is not entirely secure either. Martin Seyer has pointed out that the Maltese that accompanies the horseman on occasion is not known as a hunting dog, and normally appears in domestic scenes as a companion for women or a playmate for small children. When it is included alongside a man, the dog seems to be associated with traveling, introducing yet another possibility for the Macedonian figure’s identification.124 In addition, although lion protomes are included on the reverse sides of the heavy tetrobols of Alexander I and Perdikkas II, these lions seem to have a symbolic significance unconnected to the hunt, and there is no indication on these earlier coins of any narrative combination of obverse horseman and reverse lion into a single hunting scene.125 Could Amyntas’s wraparound composition have been an intentional—and inspired—visual play on images that were previously unconnected by anything but their appearance on the same object?

There is little that is certain, therefore, about the identity of the horseman, but we do know some things about him. As mentioned above, his very appearance on coinage (and his visual juxtaposition with the king’s name) connects him to the king as the coinissuing authority. In addition, we can say that he possesses certain qualities or skills: he is shown as a master of horsemanship and he has, we presume, expertise in handling the weaponry with which he is armed. Such expertise would contribute to his success in the hunt (as it does on Amyntas’s staters) or in battle—or even in his own defense while traveling. Like the main figure of the Alexandrovo tomb, who makes use of a cavalry sarissa and carries the military xiphos, a two-edged sword, in the hunt, the horseman on Macedonian coinage embodies the skills that contribute to the royal potential to succeed in any of these related activities.126 A useful comparison for this emphasis on the skills expected or required of the kingdom’s royalty might be found in the inscription on Darius’s tomb in which the Persian king enumerates his command of certain activities. He is a good horseman, he says, a good bowman on foot and on horseback, and a good spearman. Although this follows his claims that he is a good commander and that he exercises good judgment in battle, these abilities might translate equally well to the hunt or to the battlefield, and he emphasizes that it is his proper use of these skills (granted to him by Ahura Mazda) that makes him a

AAAC FRANKS.indb 53

8/8/12 2:14 PM

54 •

chapter one good and righteous ruler.127 In the Greek polis, too, the hunt and battle were closely related—to the point that one became a metaphor for the other—precisely because these activities promoted the development of similar skills. The practice of one activity substantially contributed not only to success in the other, but also to physical health and even the moral development of the (good and righteous) citizen (Xen. Cyn. 1.12–13; Pl. Leg. 822d–824c).128 As the public image of Macedon’s royal authority, our Macedonian rider might, in a similar way, reflect the qualities valued as part of that office and expected of the person in it.129 He possesses the acuity and physical skills that lead to success in the royal activities of hunting and warfare, as well as, it may follow, the moral character that results from his participation in these kinds of events and that contributes to (or even justifies) his rule.

If the horseman on Macedonian coinage stands for certain qualities that characterize (at least in his ideal form) the Macedonian king, does it follow that the horseman represents the king? And if so, which king does he represent? Scholars have wrestled with a similar question with regard to the Thracian version of the horseman, with varying conclusions. Some see the horseman as a representation of the mythical king Rhesos, who led the Thracians at Troy (Hom. Il. 10.412; Apollod. Bibl. 1.3.4, Epit. 4.4); some see him as the living king, who may have taken on a heroic status during his reign.130 As with this Thracian parallel, it remains unclear who Macedonia’s rider represents—and this is perhaps to be expected, given the difficulty even in recognizing him as hunter or warrior.

William Greenwalt has highlighted the Macedonian horseman’s relationship to the Thracian rider, and posits an association with the practices of Thracian kings, who “habitually associated themselves with the persona of a religious hero.” Greenwalt connects the mounted figure that appears in Macedonian coinage to “different aspects of [a] religious Hero . . . whose guise the Argead kings assumed for ceremonial purposes.”131 That is, the horseman would refer to both a hero and to the current (Argead) king as hero, conflating these personae and implying that they (king and hero) are similar figures in possession of similar qualities.132 Leaving aside for now the possibility of a specifically heroic or mythical archetype to which a living king might consciously appeal, I would emphasize one implication of Greenwalt’s proposal that is particularly useful for our understanding of the Macedonian horseman: if the horseman represents the king, it is not as a portrait that seeks to portray the singular characteristics of the individual in the office. Rather, as Carmen Arnold-­ Biucchi has suggested for Alexander I’s types, the horseman offers a “general representation of ‘the King’” in that it represents “his function and its authority.”133 In this way, the horseman offers a visual expression of the idea of “the Macedonian King” as a political body or abstract authority, ultimately apart from the individual that was king at any given time. The horseman is not a portrait of the king, per se; he is a portrait of kingship, and all that it implies in Macedon: certain skills and qualities, as well as the moral virtue cultivated by their practice.134 On what exactly this ideal was based—whether it was grounded in the reign of a historical king, in the mythology surrounding the kingdom’s foundation, or in abstract expectations of royal behavior that developed in Macedonia alongside neighboring kingdoms—remains unclear. But this kind of image, one that foregrounds the values embodied by a certain office rather than the personal qualities of the individual in power, is

AAAC FRANKS.indb 54

8/8/12 2:14 PM

the hunters hardly unfamiliar in ancient royal iconography. In Egypt and the Near East, the images of successive kings had little to do with the appearance of the individual in the office, and the representation of “the King” might change very little when the occupant of the office changed. Rather, images of “the King” could serve, through the inclusion of details imbued with cultural meaning, as a symbolic representation of the strengths or qualities identified with good and legitimate rule. A particular ruler might be recognized within this iconography through inscriptions, which not only identify the individual king represented, but also serve to declare that man’s possession of those vital royal characteristics reflected in the image. The inscription of the king’s name on Macedonian regal coinage would serve the same role, connecting a (living) individual to the model of kingship represented by the horseman.

Whitney Davis sees the same principle at work in the Egyptian canon of representation. The canonical figure, in which variability, while inevitable, is kept to a minimum, stands for an “authoritative codification” of the fixed values or constants of the world— a world in which the king is always victorious, well-made, and whole.135 In a different context and from a different perspective, Irene J. Winter has shown that the very body of the Akkadian king Naram-Sin reflects the nature of his rule, even if he is not part of an extensive canonical tradition comparable to that in Egypt.

On the king’s famous stele, his perfectly formed right side, on display as he strides confidently to the viewer’s right, reveals his auspiciousness; his luxuriant beard symbolizes his virility; his supple, well-proportioned body reflects his allure, a kind of appealing energy that emanates from the figure (Fig. 45).136 These qualities describe Naram-Sin not only as man, but also as king; in literature, they also describe Gilgamesh, the epic hero and ideal prince. Naram-Sin’s body is new in the visual tradition, but it is no coincidence, Winter argues, that it takes its form in the representation of the first Akkadian ruler to claim divine status: his image visually reflects qualities that, despite their seemingly intimate character, define both his right to be king and the very nature of his kingship by positioning him as a king like the mythic (or mytho-historical) Gilgamesh.137 Winter has argued that sculptural images of Gudea of Lagash and the Assyrian Ashurnasirpal II reflect a similar emphasis on the office of kingship, conveying not “an individualized portrait of the king,” but, at least in Ashurnasirpal’s case, “the ‘portrait of an Assyrian king,’” recognized by coded references to ideal qualities and attributes.138 In the case of Assurnasirpal, the image of the king is compared to the “perfect likeness of the god,” suggesting that he possessed traits “undiluted by personal idiosyncrasy” and appropriate to his role and his rule.139 In a similar way, on the Persian darics, discussed above, the portrait of the king as archer “evoke[s] an ethos of rulership.”140 These kinds of ruler portraits have basic similarities with the conception and function of Greek portraiture, which was,

AAAC FRANKS.indb 55

• 55

Figure 45. Naram-Sin conquering enemies, Akkadian stele, ca. 2254– 2218 B.c. Paris, Musée du Louvre, J. de Morgan excavations, 1898, Sb4

8/8/12 2:14 PM

56 •

chapter one during the Classical period, intimately tied to public image. As in the Eastern representations of royalty, portraits in the Greek world, it is well understood, were more complicated than the objective reproduction of an individual’s physical features that is often assumed in the modern usage of the term “portrait.”141 Indeed, while physiognomic naturalism and even distinctiveness is not unknown in Greek portraits (as in the images of Socrates well known from Roman copies), physiognomic faithfulness or the creation of a “true likeness” does not appear to be, in most cases, a primary motivation in the shaping of portrait images. What was rather more important than the accurate rendering of physiognomic detail was “the visual expression of a person’s place within a larger framework based on gender, age, and social status,” accomplished through the representation of certain physical characteristics or other kinds of attributes that are meaningful within the cultural context of their production and display.142 These kinds of images are what J. J. Pollitt calls “role portraits,” since the positioning of an individual within an existing social structure is, more than the idiosyncrasies of character or appearance, the defining aspect of his public image.143 Pollitt uses as examples the images of Perikles and Anakreon set up in the 5th century on the Athenian Acropolis. These portraits represent the public roles of, respectively, “statesmanstrategos” or “poet” through their possession of those qualities that “their society appreciated as permanent values.”144 The individuals Perikles and Anakreon—recognized by the associated inscriptions, and not by their distinctive or accurate physiognomies—fulfill (and even, in the case of Perikles, help to further define) the roles depicted.

The Macedonian horseman, in a similar way, represents a specific (Macedonian) idea of the role or office of kingship, which is defined by certain “permanent values” and within which individual kings locate themselves. In the inclusion of the horseman on his regal coinage—even in the 4th century, as the horseman becomes, more explicitly, a hunter under Amyntas and, possibly, a military commander under Philip II—each king connects his rule to a traditional emblem of royal authority that extends back, at least, to the reign of Alexander I. This connection positions the living ruler as the fulfillment of the role for which the emblem stands and as the possessor of the values with which it is associated.145 In his public image, each successive historical king becomes, both visually and ideologically, the very ideal of kingship. And there is more: as the most recent fulfillment of this ideal, the living king also takes his place within the lineage of (Argead) royalty that previously filled that role. As I will discuss further in Chapter 4, this positioning of the current king in the dynastic line serves to elevate and legitimize his rule.

Guided by this concept of the horseman and the portrait of Macedonian kingship, we might understand the mounted figures in the Vergina frieze in a new way. Certainly, as lion hunters, they appeal to a Macedonian tradition, which survives in the Amyntas stater.

But as mounted hunters and as clothed men—a detail that simultaneously distinguishes them from the nudes surrounding them and underscores their similarity to the traditional emblem—our protagonists are situated squarely within a powerful visual tradition of the Macedonian horseman. There are also hints that, like the horsemen of coinage, each mounted lion hunter was once armed with two spears: along with the single spear each has in hand, spear shafts embedded in the left sides of the boar and lion suggest that each horseman has already released a spear that has hit its mark. Through their possession of these iconographic markers, these men represent an established idea of Macedonian royalty, along with the virtues and qualities of leadership it reflects. And, like the successive

AAAC FRANKS.indb 56

8/8/12 2:14 PM

the hunters

• 57

horsemen of coinage, they take their place in a long line of Macedonian kings, who fulfilled that ideal before them. Our Vergina protagonists, it follows, hunt lions from horseback not because they hunt in Persia or even in Persian fashion, but because this is how royalty is conceived and represented in the Macedonian visual tradition.

Portrait within a Portrait Despite the overriding prominence of a man’s social or political role in defining the meaning of portraiture, the historical individual still exists as an integral component of the role portrait. He is, after all, the subject, and it is his place within the cultural context that the portrait strives to communicate. Likewise, in the Macedonian tradition, while the horseman might stand for a culturally understood idea of “ruler,” it also seems to operate consistently, at least in the tradition of coinage preserved to us, in connection to the individual that filled that role. And since Tomb II is a monument that commemorates a single individual, it seems likely that the frieze’s protagonist horsemen also correspond to historical figures that would fulfill that role.

Which historical figures the horsemen might represent has been a primary concern of much scholarship on the frieze, and we have seen the various and vigorous attempts at identifying the lion hunters as historical individuals from the court of Alexander or Philip (or Arrhidaios).146 The scholarly inclination to identify personages within a given work is, perhaps, understandable; as Cohen puts it, “naming affirms authority and gives the illusion of scientific inquiry, despite the fact that in our field names are often the result of faith.”147 The mere variety of proposals, however, should alert us to the circularity that such tentative identifications risk. Certainly, the condition of the frieze does not allow for a close examination of facial details, but these would likely be of little help even if the work were better preserved. We have, after all, no extant contemporary portraits of Philip II, Arrhidaios, or Kassander—all of whom have been connected with one or another of the hunters—with which to compare our figures, and precise physical likenesses of Alexander III, the vast majority of which are posthumous and many of which are not definitively identifiable as Alexander, are inherently problematic.148 In any case, as we have seen, portraits of this period often have concerns that take priority over likeness. Quite simply, on the basis of the current evidence, we cannot know whom the horsemen represent.

Still, while a connection to historical individuals may be an ideal end for some, it is, in a sense, less meaningful for the interpretation of the frieze than the paradigm of Macedonian royalty according to which these figures are visually defined. The symbol of the horseman and the office it stands for—as well as, by extension, the distinguished line of men who have previously filled it—is deeply meaningful within the royal culture of Macedonia, even outside of its attachment to familiar historical individuals. Whoever they might be, our protagonists are each depicted here as the kind of man who, like those kings that came before, effectively fills the ancient office of Macedonian kingship.

AAAC FRANKS.indb 57

8/8/12 2:14 PM

AAAC FRANKS.indb 58

8/8/12 2:14 PM

Sabina Ion

About the Author

The Frieze of Tomb II at Vergina

Hallie M. Franks Tomb II at Vergina is a royal tomb, built to commemorate a member of the Macedonian royal family in the period of prosperity and opulence surrounding Alexander the Great’s reign. The painted hunting scene that adorns the tomb’s facade is a striking and rare example of Macedonian court art. Newly reconstructed here, the painting, dedicated to the recognition of the deceased, elucidates the cultural influences through which the kingdom and its rulers declared their legitimacy. In this study, Franks redefines the place of this masterpiece in Macedonian art, adroitly navigating myth, history, and visual tradition in her new interpretation of the famous “Hunting Frieze” at Vergina.

Ancient Art and Architecture in Context Published with the support of the Getty Foundation, this series demonstrates, through case studies of specific artifacts and monuments, that aesthetic study, contextual investigation, and technical examination are complementary tools in the quest to retrieve meaning from the past. By combining archaeological and art historical approaches within a contextual framework, the books in this series exemplify true interdisciplinary research and lead to a richer understanding of antiquity.

Franks

Hallie Franks is an Assistant Professor of Ancient Studies at New York University’s Gallatin School of Individualized Study. She is currently excavating with the American Research Center in Sofia and The National Institute of Archaeology with Museum at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (NIAM-BAS) at the Macedonian site of Heraclea Sintica in southwestern Bulgaria. Her next project looks at the metaphorical connections between movement through architecture and travel in ancient Greece.

HUNTERS ˜ HEROES ˜ KINGS

The author at the Macedonian site of Heraclea Sintica.

HUNTERS ˜ HEROES ˜ KINGS

Hunters, Heroes, Kings: The Frieze of Tomb II at Vergina

Jacket Illustrations Front: Facade of Tomb II, Vergina Photo Hellenic Ministry of Culture and Tourism/17th Ephorate for Prehistoric and Classical Antiquities Back: Detail of lion hunt, Alexander Sarcophagus, ca. 310 b.c. Istanbul, Archaeological Museum 370 Photo Erich Lessing/Art Resource, NY

FRANKS COVER PRESS.indd 1

ASCSA

HALLIE M. FRANKS

8/8/12 4:30 PM